Thank you for the extra CC, that was perfect timing :). To address Foxboron, I would choose Django as a framework purely so that we could integrate it into the same wsgi engine that archweb uses on the current servers and have it work seamlessly. But additionally, Django provides a good baked in user model which we would otherwise have to either implement or use an existing user framework for Flask/SQLAlchemy? I believe that Django is more rigorous in it's approach to handling routes and would require less developer effort to add, modify, or remove features. It is heavier, but I believe that it is more stable when used correctly. Django also provides many automatic handling of sessions (redirection to login, automatic error responses, ...) and it's rest_framework extension is just as simple and robust as anything else. I'm a bit confused. You wrote one patch and you want to rewrite the whole
thing now? I've seen this at least three times before with more or less fully developed rewrites. They all failed. They were all written in Python coincidentally.
No. The patch was merely something that I wanted to help resolve before presenting any kind of proposal like this. It was brought up as an outstanding issue or possible patch to finish up for the RPC protocol. I only wanted to help finish the patch to help out (and I also thought provides would be quite useful). Additionally, I would like to apologize for the fact that the proposal is not as well written as it could be. On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:08 PM Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
The following is a proposal for a Django-hosted aurweb application. It is meant to be a drop-in replacement for aur.archlinux.org; effectively cloning its user interface and capabilities into a Python Django extension.
Following https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/1000/, I would like to
On Sat 16 Feb 2019 17:21 -0800, Kevin Morris wrote: put
together a new aurweb.
I'm a bit confused. You wrote one patch and you want to rewrite the whole thing now? I've seen this at least three times before with more or less fully developed rewrites. They all failed. They were all written in Python coincidentally.
The current revamped version of archweb runs inside of a django server as a django extension (or app). I would like to do this same thing for `aurweb`. The new django `aurweb` shall support all of the current v1-6 capabilities that aurweb provides, as well as the front-end user website located at https://aur.archlinux.org.
archweb was already written in python for django more than 10 yrs ago. I guess it may not have been an extension (or app), whatever that is. I imagine the porting/migration if any would have been much more trivial than a full rewrite.
It shall be an exact clone from the user's perspective.
This is a very uncompelling reason to rewrite the whole thing.
The major differences between maintaining a PHP vs Django server would be that the Django server would be:
Users don't care about any of your six bullet points.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. If approved, I would love to begin this project within the next few weeks.
Begin the project now and don't make it the same. Make it better. Nobody is gonna approve vaporware. Steal users from the AUR. Convince people your system really is better. Good luck.
-- Kevin Morris Software Developer Business Inquiries: kevr@coderesistance.com Personal Inquiries: kevr.gtalk@gmail.com Personal Phone: (415) 571-0513 Technologies: C++, Python, Django, Ruby, Rails, ReactJS, jQuery, Javascript, SQL, Redux