(Wow interesting conversation on this list today!)

mso@oz.net wrote:
> Quixote has been moving in the direction of more quixote.get_*() functions
> rather than fewer.  quixote.get_request(), quixote.get_session(),
> quixote.get_user(), etc.  Again that was not my preference, but it has a
> sound basis.

> It's easier to have
> methods/functions just get the context objects they need directly from a
> central registry, and that's one uniform way that works at any point in
> the application.

I completely agree.

I don't really care about renaming has_info(), but I'd suggest
is_alive() (or is_valid()) which I think is better than is_worth_storing().

 > Regarding persistence, are you talking about one of my earlier
 > e-mails?  I
 > would like to see Quixote come with "batteries included", yes.

Note that a free set of Quixote batteries can be downloaded anytime from
qlime.org ;) And while I'm shoving in plugs - cafepy.com now runs
Quixote + QLime on the main site - (not that there's much content there).

Seriously, though, I think newbies will be happier if a few more things
work out of the box (a simple session persistence to picked file, for
example). I'm -0 on including Dulcinea though. Some good utilities are
already there (StaticFile etc.) and more could be picked up from the
wiki or submissions. However do the core developers really have the
resources to maintain all these other things? Hmm.. or should outside
developers (that's us!) start a quixote-extras project on SF?

In general I think Quixote quality has been really good, and it is
becoming a better framework over time. Great work, guys! Now just
finalize the function names so I don't have to keep changing my code :)

Cheers,
Shalabh