NOTE:

Several people have suggested that the name "WebKit" should be scrapped when Webware is transitioned to a DistUtils based package architecture. ChuckEsterbrook likes the name and has rejected these suggestions so far, but the discussion isn't over yet. My argument is that it is better to position and describe Webware as 'A Python-Powered Application Server', that comes with a suite of useful components, than saying that "Webware for Python is a suite of software components for developing object-oriented, web-based applications." The former is clearer and more direct. The latter is ambiguous and needs clarification. The name "WebKit" and the latter description imply that the AppServer is just another component of Webware. This is misleading: the AppServer is the heart of Webware.

Using the name WebKit also makes the module/package structure and path management issues more complex than they should be.

-- Tavis Rudd - 29 Oct 2001

I wouldn't mind seeing other kits which handle other forms of communication. What about MailKit, for example? One could imagine the nature of requests and responses to be quite different in that kind of environment.

-- PaulBoddie - 30 Oct 2001

Such 'kits' could still be created if the name 'WebKit' was removed. A sensible package layout would be something like this:

• Webware [package]

  • MultiPortServer [module]

  • AppServer [module]

  • Application [module]

  • Transaction [module]

  • Servlet [module]

  • Request [module]

  • Response [module]

  • Session [module]

  • SessionStore [module]

  • Cookie [module]

  • WebUtils [sub-package]

  • MiscUtils [sub-package]

• MiddleKit [package]

• UserKit [package]

• FunFormKit [package]

• Cheetah [package]

• XMLForms [package]

• other 'kits' and related packages ...

-- Tavis Rudd - 30 Oct 2001

I brought this up again on the list a few weeks ago and Chuck said his final answer to my request to get rid of the name 'WebKit' was no. I'll agree to disagree.

-- Tavis Rudd - 23 Nov 2001