As I had done with Flask and CherryPy, the natural first step was to port the minimalist WSGI database user interface (but taking advantage of the robustness and templating (Jinja2) enhancements) to Werkzeug. This turned out to be very straightforward (see GitHub tag v0.3.2). Key changes:
- replace my Request/Response objects by Werkzeug’s own
- add a request argument to the various handler methods
- simplify the dispatch methods, using request.path and request.form
- replace the DatabaseApp.__call__ by a much simpler wsgi_app
- eliminate serve_css (static files are served by Werkzeug’s SharedDataMiddleware)
- use Werkzeug’s development server.
The second modification (see tag v0.3.3) was to use Werkzeug’s Map and Rule classes to refactor the URL routing. What I liked about this, compared to Flask’s, is that I could keep the delegation of routing within the FilmHandler class.
The final version —for now (see tag v0.3.4), improves the URLs to make them more RESTful. While they’re not completely in agreement with Oliver Charles comments, they’re a step in the right direction. This is something I could not achieve with CherryPy (without bringing in or writing an external module).
The bottom line is that I’ve decided to use Werkzeug for continuing with this tutorial. Perhaps what won me over was its debugger. Also, Werkzeug is a library, not a framework or even a micro-framework, so it feels like a much lighter dependency than CherryPy or Flask. If there is a concern, it is that Werkzeug lacks support for Python 3. This may make a difference —in terms of “traction”— now that WebOb has been ported, but I’m hoping Werkzeug/Flask fans will correct that in the not too distant future.