Re: Proposed Architecture Changes in 2.0 (Request for comments)

["David F. Skoll" <..hidden..>]

Chris Travers wrote:

> Given that our approach doesn't get to use some of the major parts of
> a framework (authentication, model), and given that the view logic is
> not likely to require much of a rewrite between 1.3 and 2.0, does
> moving to a pre-existing framework simplify or complicate our lives as
> developers?

It depends on the framework.  I think Catalyst will eventually simplify
your lives, but will initially complicate it as you navigate the learning
curve and the rather numerous prerequisites.  All the prerequisites will
also make it a bit harder for users to install and test the code.

> Finally, I would like to be thinking a little bit here beyond the web
> interface.  In particular, I would like to see a framework that would
> serve as a basis for thick client apps as well.

How do you see that playing out?  A REST-based API?  I'd love to see
something like that.  Or do you envisage writing enough of the logic
right inside PostgreSQL so a thick client could just make function calls
in PL/pgSQL?  (I think the Skype developers are very big on that approach.)

Regards,

David.