* mario ruggier wrote [2005-10-31 22:22:04 +0100]:
> For unicode applications (done in quixote), is it safe to assume that
> this htmltext-like unicode subclass is the natural replacement
> (evolution) for htmltext? Similarly, qpy seems like the natural
> replacement (evolution) of ptl? Can these be used in quixote now? Will
> a future quixote adopt these instead?

"Living Better With Unicode" as a theme? After diving into QP for the past
week, that's one theme that rings true.

Noted today, another benefit of the QPY approach (compile the files rather
than use an import hook): pydoc works - it'll read the pyc files created.

> Given the many similarities between quixote and qp, and given the
> purposes of each (generic object publisher, specialized application
> framework) what are the reasons why qp is a distinct package, rather
> than not being built on top of quixote?

'specialized application framework' ... seems you may be on track there
Mario. One makes few choices for you; the other makes many choices. With
Quixote you know what the publisher will look like, but sessions, User
management, persistence are all unknowns.

With qp you know what the basic web publishing environment stack will look
like for any developer, from http through authentication to sessions, User
and persistence. We might envision more sharing of 'applets' with such a
backdrop. I wonder if that was one of the desired outcomes.

.... ya just better like the principal system architecture choices of *nix and
Durus! This is where I spend my time anyway, so these choices do not feel
like limitations to me but no doubt they will to some.