On Mar 17, 2005, at 1:46 PM, : mso@oz.net wrote:

> If we're talking about stripping Quixote to the bare essentials, why is
> there a user object at all?  Quixote doesn't need it; it's just a
> convenience for the application.
>
> Regarding persistence, are you talking about one of my earlier
> e-mails?  I
> would like to see Quixote come with "batteries included", yes.  How is
> having persistence out of the box different from having a user object
> out
> of the box?  It's something that no serious application can do without.
> But since there's no "one size fits all" solution to persistence, why
> not
> have several optional strategies to choose from or expand?  They could
> be
> in a separate package, quixote.tools.persistence or
> quixote.tools.session_managers, so they don't clutter the directory of
> "essential" modules.  AMK wrote an excellent article (which I can't
> find
> right now) on why the Python standard library should be expanded so
> people
> have the "best of breed" implementations readily available and don't
> all
> have to reinvent the wheel; I'd argue the same thing applies to
> Quixote.
> Or they could be in a separate QuixoteExtras tarball.  Anything would
> be
> better than having to hunt them down one by one or cut/paste them off
> the
> wiki page.
>

I can't add too much to the conversation, except to say that what
attracted me to Quixote in the first place is the simplicity of the
core concepts (e.g. object publishing). I would advocate stripping it
to the "bare essentials", but IHMO the concepts of "user" and "session"
are part of that. Put the more complex "batteries included"
implementation in Duclinea and/or on the wiki.

-- David