On 04 September 2002, Andrew Kuchling said:
> That's a good question.  I don't think we have anything we want to
> add, or that we plan to refactor.  Is there any reason we shouldn't
> just stamp 1.0 on Quixote?

Two things I've been meaning to do:

  * access control (ie. add a simple User class and some example
    authentication code)

  * try to unify CGI/FastCGI, SCGI, and mod_python -- eg. I think
    there are subtle differences between (Fast)CGI and SCGI driver
    scripts, and a mod_python-based Quixote app doesn't even
    have a driver script.  It would be nice to fix that unevenness.

The former might introduce a subtle, theoretical-only backwards
incompatibility -- ie. the 'user' attribute of Session would be
documented as a User object.  Doubt we'd actually enforce that anywhere
though.

The latter would almost certainly introduce backwards incompatibility,
up to and including breaking all mod_python-based Quixote apps.  (That's
always assuming that I can figure out a good way to unify things, and
that I'm not the only one who thinks this is worth pursuing.)

        Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer                gward@mems-exchange.org
MEMS Exchange                            http://www.mems-exchange.org