
* fixes some typos * tweaks some language issues that occured because I took Chris' stuff out of the context of the original READMEish structure * ditches installation for deploymenthowto and hackinghowto
170 lines
7.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
170 lines
7.4 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _design-decisions-chapter:
|
|
|
|
==================
|
|
Design Decisions
|
|
==================
|
|
|
|
This chapter talks a bit about design decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Python
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
Chris Webber on "Why Python":
|
|
|
|
Because I know Python, love Python, am capable of actually making
|
|
this thing happen in Python (I've worked on a lot of large free
|
|
software web applications before in Python, including `Miro
|
|
Community`_, the `Miro Guide`_, a large portion of `Creative
|
|
Commons`_, and a whole bunch of things while working at `Imaginary
|
|
Landscape`_). I know Python, I can make this happen in Python, me
|
|
starting a project like this makes sense if it's done in Python.
|
|
|
|
You might say that PHP is way more deployable, that Rails has way
|
|
more cool developers riding around on fixie bikes, and all of
|
|
those things are true. But I know Python, like Python, and think
|
|
that Python is pretty great. I do think that deployment in Python
|
|
is not as good as with PHP, but I think the days of shared hosting
|
|
are (thankfully) coming to an end, and will probably be replaced
|
|
by cheap virtual machines spun up on the fly for people who want
|
|
that sort of stuff, and Python will be a huge part of that future,
|
|
maybe even more than PHP will. The deployment tools are getting
|
|
better. Maybe we can use something like Silver Lining. Maybe we
|
|
can just distribute as ``.debs`` or ``.rpms``. We'll figure it
|
|
out when we get there.
|
|
|
|
Regardless, if I'm starting this project, which I am, it's gonna
|
|
be in Python.
|
|
|
|
.. _Miro Community: http://mirocommunity.org/
|
|
.. _Miro Guide: http://miroguide.org/
|
|
.. _Creative Commons: http://creativecommons.org/
|
|
.. _Imaginary Landscape: http://www.imagescape.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why WSGI Minimalism
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
Chris Webber on "Why WSGI Minimalism":
|
|
|
|
If you notice in the technology listI list a lot of
|
|
components that are very `Django Project`_, but not actually
|
|
Django components. What can I say, I really like a lot of the
|
|
ideas in Django! Which leads to the question: why not just use
|
|
Django?
|
|
|
|
While I really like Django's ideas and a lot of its components, I
|
|
also feel that most of the best ideas in Django I want have been
|
|
implemented as good or even better outside of Django. I could
|
|
just use Django and replace the templating system with Jinja2, and
|
|
the form system with wtforms, and the database with MongoDB and
|
|
MongoKit, but at that point, how much of Django is really left?
|
|
|
|
I also am sometimes saddened and irritated by how coupled all of
|
|
Django's components are. Loosely coupled yes, but still coupled.
|
|
WSGI has done a good job of providing a base layer for running
|
|
applications on and if you know how to do it yourself [1]_, it's
|
|
not hard or many lines of code at all to bind them together
|
|
without any framework at all (not even say `Pylons`_, `Pyramid`_
|
|
or `Flask`_ which I think are still great projects, especially for
|
|
people who want this sort of thing but have no idea how to get
|
|
started). And even at this already really early stage of writing
|
|
MediaGoblin, that glue work is mostly done.
|
|
|
|
Not to say I don't think Django isn't great for a lot of things.
|
|
For a lot of stuff, it's still the best, but not for MediaGoblin,
|
|
I think.
|
|
|
|
One thing that Django does super well though is documentation. It
|
|
still has some faults, but even with those considered I can hardly
|
|
think of any other project in Python that has as nice of
|
|
documentation as Django. It may be worth learning some lessons on
|
|
documentation from Django [2]_, on that note.
|
|
|
|
I'd really like to have a good, thorough hacking-howto and
|
|
deployment-howto, especially in the former making some notes on
|
|
how to make it easier for Django hackers to get started.
|
|
|
|
.. _Django Project: http://www.djangoproject.com/
|
|
.. _Pylons: http://pylonshq.com/
|
|
.. _Pyramid: http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/pyramid/dev/
|
|
.. _Flask: http://flask.pocoo.org/
|
|
|
|
.. [1] http://pythonpaste.org/webob/do-it-yourself.html
|
|
.. [2] http://pycon.blip.tv/file/4881071/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why MongoDB
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
Chris Webber on "Why MongoDB":
|
|
|
|
In case you were wondering, I am not a NOSQL fanboy, I do not go
|
|
around telling people that MongoDB is web scale. Actually my
|
|
choice for MongoDB isn't scalability, though scaling up really
|
|
nicely is a pretty good feature and sets us up well in case large
|
|
volume sites eventually do use MediaGoblin. But there's another
|
|
side of scalability, and that's scaling down, which is important
|
|
for federation, maybe even more important than scaling up in an
|
|
ideal universe where everyone ran servers out of their own
|
|
housing. As a memory-mapped database, MongoDB is pretty hungry,
|
|
so actually I spent a lot of time debating whether the inability
|
|
to scale down as nicely as something like SQL has with sqlite
|
|
meant that it was out.
|
|
|
|
But I decided in the end that I really want MongoDB, not for
|
|
scalability, but for flexibility. Schema evolution pains in SQL
|
|
are almost enough reason for me to want MongoDB, but not quite.
|
|
The real reason is because I want the ability to eventually handle
|
|
multiple media types through MediaGoblin, and also allow for
|
|
plugins, without the rigidity of tables making that difficult. In
|
|
other words, something like::
|
|
|
|
{"title": "Me talking until you are bored",
|
|
"description": "blah blah blah",
|
|
"media_type": "audio",
|
|
"media_data": {
|
|
"length": "2:30",
|
|
"codec": "OGG Vorbis"},
|
|
"plugin_data": {
|
|
"licensing": {
|
|
"license": "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"}}}
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being able to just dump media-specific information in a media_data
|
|
hashtable is pretty great, and even better is having a plugin
|
|
system where you can just let plugins have their own entire
|
|
key-value space cleanly inside the document that doesn't interfere
|
|
with anyone else's stuff. If we were to let plugins to deposit
|
|
their own information inside the database, either we'd let plugins
|
|
create their own tables which makes SQL migrations even harder
|
|
than they already are, or we'd probably end up creating a table
|
|
with a column for key, a column for value, and a column for type
|
|
in one huge table called "plugin_data" or something similar. (Yo
|
|
dawg, I heard you liked plugins, so I put a database in your
|
|
database so you can query while you query.) Gross.
|
|
|
|
I also don't want things to be too loose so that we forget or lose
|
|
the structure of things, and that's one reason why I want to use
|
|
MongoKit, because we can cleanly define a much structure as we
|
|
want and verify that documents match that structure generally
|
|
without adding too much bloat or overhead (MongoKit is a pretty
|
|
lightweight wrapper and doesn't inject extra MongoKit-specific
|
|
stuff into the database, which is nice and nicer than many other
|
|
ORMs in that way).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why Sphinx for documentation
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
Will Kahn-Greene on "Why Sphinx":
|
|
|
|
Sphinx is a fantastic tool for organizing documentation for a
|
|
Python-based project that makes it pretty easy to write docs that
|
|
are readable in source form and can be "compiled" into HTML, LaTeX
|
|
and other formats.
|
|
|
|
There are other doc systems out there, but given that GNU
|
|
MediaGoblin is being written in Python, it makes sense to use
|
|
Sphinx for now.
|