On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 03:46:39PM +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
[a large amount of meaningful comment that I've removed]
> But what I'm (not so) secretly hoping is that when Maypole gets cleaned up for
> a new release and the core implementation is polished a little and people
> WRITE LOTS OF APPLICATIONS IN IT BEFORE HACKING IT TO PIECES, we'll discover
> that the separation of concerns you're talking about really isn't that
> important, when it comes down to it.
Since my last posts to the maypole list, I have actually been writing
applications with maypole (I have also gotten divorced, seen my son born
and sold my house but that's another story). It's fairly large and fairly
effective. It's also using version 1.7 (I think).
If anyone is interested, it's at
http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/
There's lots of complexity but very little of the complexity is due
to maypole - integrating swish-e and a content coming in as xml was
much more fun.
I feel relatively experienced in using Maypole as a framework now.
I also feel fairly strongly that it is pretty good - it needs tweaking
and polishing, not a revolution. I'm of the school that says make it
more Template Toolkit based too but I think that, if Maypole is to
succeed it needs usage not endless development.
nic
--
they were brought up on strange propaganda
they have been trained to hate and destroy
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT