[Cubicweb] Integrating CubicWeb views into Pyramid (long)

Nicolas Chauvat nicolas.chauvat at logilab.fr
Wed Aug 13 20:52:00 CEST 2014


On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 12:51:48AM +0200, Christophe de Vienne wrote:
> >>Use CW predicates in add_view + cw predicate weight
> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>Add runtine evalution of predicate weigths into pyramid.
> >
> >This looks like a nice second step to me, but I am still unsure
> >what the benefits would be: drop CW registries completely? If you
> >think that Pyramid registries do not fit (which I am still unsure,
> >see my previous question), we will more end-up with a
> >re-implementation of CW registry features in Pyramid, which may (or
> >not) be interesting for the Pyramid community. Paul probably has a
> >good idea of the answer.
> 
> It is indeed not a first intention solution.
> But sooner or later we will wonder if it make sens to merge the CW
> registry in the Pyramid one.
> It may not, but it may too. :)

IMHO, the goals of rebasing CubicWeb on Pyramid are:

1) stop maintaining layers in CubicWeb that are better done elsewhere
   and focus on what CubicWeb is good at and does differently/better
   compared to other frameworks

2) merge communities(a) and help each other spread and grow (CubicWeb
   developers contributing to Pyramid and Pyramid users easily
   exploring CW and using its good parts)

That said, I can see two paths ahead for the mid-term:

- using predicates and weights as is done by CubicWeb is a good idea
  when selecting items from a registry and we should help(b) Pyramid
  benefit from it one way or another (maybe enhancing the registry in
  Pyramid or making registries pluggable and have CW provide its own
  implementation).

- it is not a good idea and we should drop it from CubicWeb and use
  what is in Pyramid

(a) we once used Zope/CMF/CPS/Plone/Archetypes and branched because it
was not going where we wanted but followed the life of Zope3 and took
out good ideas from it... merging seems to me like the right word (and
I always thought folding together pylons and bfg was a nice move).

(b) I understand we do not have commit rights to Pyramid and it may
take some work to convince the Pyramid developers with a use case they
consider valid, but they know Open Source and I doubt they would
reject the arguments of a well-behaved group of contributors without
an honest discussion. Whatever the outcome, we will have moved
forward.

The above does not answer your question about the short-term choice we
are to make, sorry :)

-- 
Nicolas Chauvat

logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de connaissances  



More information about the Cubicweb mailing list