RL: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk/django/core/cache/backends

2378 adrian cursor.execute(“SELECT cachekey FROM %s ORDER BY cachekey LIMIT 1 OFFSET %%s” % self.table, [num / self.cullfrequency]) 2378 adrian cursor.execute(“DELETE FROM %s WHERE cachekey < %%s” % self._table, [cursor.fetchone()[0]])

That last lines wraps a full 140 characters. I wouldn’t exactly call that a tribute to software craftsmanship.

Fred PyStone just needs to get back in training, start running, and he’ll be back to his warrior self in no time.

Have you actually seen him in action, smashing stuff?

http://startifact.com/grok_smash.jpg

Not to offend anybody’s feelings, but the Grok mascot does look a bit wussy. Noah and I could fix that of course, except that I can’t draw. I wonder if Mr PyStone was a fighter twenty years ago who got worn down by the military-industrial complex (Zope?).

Mike: You can excuse Zope 2 for not having access to the right components when it was developed in the 90s, but Django has far less excuse. I think a lot of the right components did already exist when Django was written. They were in Zope 3. :) It’s just that it was very hard to see them back then, so I understand them for not noticing. (Zope’s problem, not Django’s, too)

Noah: being a stubborn outspoken Dutchman, I have a lot of sympathy for following ones own path. I do ally myself to the Zope framework as I see a lot of value in both community, reuse, and avoiding NIH, though spend much of my time actually pushing it forward.

But the relationship between the projects is not feudal: there’s no emperor over them. Each project leader is sovereign; none owes anything to the others. The code has technical interdependencies, but that’s not feudalism any more than a restaurant and its suppliers are feudal. WSGI-org-onia is both a treaty organization and a marketplace: Pylons shops for components, and all parties make interoperability agreements. You saw that at the inter-framework meeting at PyCon.

I don’t know enough about Django’s development structure to know if it’s an oligarchy or not.

Noah is certainly a rebel, but his interest in customizing something specifically for himself makes it unlikely others will follow him, thus no revolution. I prefer the framework approach because several minds working together can build something better than one mind can. Frameworks are designed to be used by others besides the author, so they can attract a movement and thus form a revolution.

If you think Ian’s statement was anti-Django, you don’t know Ian. He wasn’t using “oligarchy” as an insult, but merely describing its governance structure as he sees it. Pylons developers respect Django and its developers. But Pylons and Django express opposite design philosophies. One tries to borrow the best; the other tries to build something better. You can’t expect Pylons developers to like Django when, if they did, they’d have been Django developers instead. But I think that much of Django’s idiosynchracies are because the right components didn’t exist when Django was written. Maybe if Pylons had existed then, and were a bit more mature than it is now, there wouldn’t have been a need for a Django project.

I have been studying web frameworks in Python for the last 2 years quite heavily, this includes Pylons, Zope, Zope 3, Grok, Django, web.py, and I don’t like Django for every situation, but I do for some, like the appengine application where I used the Django templates recently. I also don’t believe in the idea that you need to have a web framework to write a web application in every situation. I also do not like a tightly configured set of components in all situations, I like freedom. Finally, I don’t need a leader, or want what you are peddling, sorry, give the next guy in the airport the flower…