Devin Mullins
9/22/2006 2:04:00 AM
Phil Tomson wrote:
> In Ruby, you look at something like Mongrel and it has to explicitly
> add Rails, Camping, Nitro support. In Python, if a server is WSGI,
> anything that supports WSGI will run on it.
Well, part of that is mindshare. Consider that the Nitro, IOWA authors
wrote the Mongrel adapters themselves (for the most part). In this case
you could call the Mongrel API the Ruby version of WSGI.
> Some frameworks, like
> Pylons, have incorporated it throughout the stack to make it trivial
> to swap put template systems, ORMs, you name it.
Yeah, that's my (limited) understanding of where WSGI shines. In Ruby,
OTOH, there need to exist m*n adapters between m view libraries and n
controller libraries. I dunno... big whoop. The adapters are, like, 3
lines of code, and there isn't a heck of a lot of demand for Amrita (as
in, not erb) as *is*.
> That's why you see so
> many frameworks in Python, because frankly they are rather easy to put
> together.
Not true. WSGI arose *because* of the so many frameworks, and the
pro-Rails argument that "we don't have to waste time choosing a stack."
> Could Ruby benefit from an internal standard like this?
Muh... I dunno. No?
Devin