* Sells, Fred wrote [2006-10-20 09:50:00 -0400]: > I had tried Quixote about 2 years ago and liked it, but never got the chance > to use it in production. Please forgive my lack of tact, but what I need to > know is... > > Is Quixote a viable solution in the Ajax environment? Sure. AJAX is just http, with Javascript on the client, as you know. > Is mod_python itself a viable solution with Quixote, I've just started using > it. Am intimidated by alternatives that require installing and > administering another server (SCGI?) when we have a VERY SMALL IT group. I think you should consider looking at SCGI. It really isn't that difficult to work with, and there are some advantages to dropping mod_python. If I recall correctly mod_python has dreadful, or no, support for Unicode. That may or may not be an issue for you, but it only takes on funny character to run an ascii-limited web developer's day ;-) Speaking as a former Quixote user (I still maintain a couple 'legacy' Quixote apps), might I suggest that you consider also "QP", a closely related cousin to Quixote. It has the same Form's package more or less, and feels very Quixote-like since it came out of the same place where Quixote was spawned, if not from all the same people. Reasons for looking at QP - QP, like Quixote, seems to have been designed with simplicity in mind. You can read all the source code in a single session and quickly come up to speed. - is Unicode safe and friendly from the ground up; at the time QP arrived, Quixote had its challenges. The combo of QP and Durus (see below) makes for a nice working environment where I don't often even have to think about Unicode, it just works. - comes with built in application management, useful if you run more than one app in your org. eg qp -s someapp start (starts an app) qp -q someapp (quick restart) - comes with built in user and session management; - supports authentication using forms, HTTP Basic and HTTP Digest, via either http or http-secure, out of the box - SCGI integrated; you can choose to front end this with a httpd like Apache or lighttpd, or use QP's own web server (which for many in-house apps might be a good solution indeed) which performs very well. - working example of "Ajax" included in one of the demos included with the package (see "proto" demo) - QP like Quixote is deliberately small; QP unlike Quixote makes some choices as to how certain things are implemented (like Users, Sessions), but like Quixote, doesn't put obstacles in your way. Don't like using PTL (the similar concept in QP is 'QPY') - use some other templating approach. - appears to be actively developed and in active use at Mems-Exchange, not unlike the situation as Quixote was growing up Reasons for not looking at QP - By default, user and therefore sessions are stored in a Durus object database. Durus is something of a spitting image to ZODB, but simpler and far easier to understand. You can replace this with any User and Session management scheme you might like to implement - just like you can Quixote - but there are more Quixote examples of this in the wild now. If there is a Durus-less QP user out there, perhaps they can speak up. - smaller user community, so far, but not tiny. Durus has a broader community and more fans I suspect. There is some cross pollination to be sure ... It would appear that most QP users are former Quixote users, including the QP developers. If you chose to explore QP, visit these links and install the packages. Installation is simple and standard, but do read QP's README for a couple of minor 2 second tasks which must be done. http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/qp/ http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/qpy/ http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/durus/ I have a couple QP tutorials in the style of 'working application examples' that I'm going to make available Real Soon Now.