> it started off as little more than the code examples in PEP333 ! Flask had less than 1000 lines when it begun, but werkzeug is much bigger than that. > Exc

> it started off as little more than the code examples in PEP333 ! Flask had less than 1000 lines when it begun, but werkzeug is much bigger than that. > Except that it had let's say OpenId added to the framework. Is that supposed to be a hypothetical example? Because Flask framework doesn't have openid added to it. Flask extensions for it exist, just the way it should. The users can write whatever extensions they want - that shouldn't concern framework developer or other users. > Now in my opinion the right place to do authorisation is earlier in the wsgi chain - using say repoze.who. I don't know what repoze is. But if you want to insert a wsgi middleware, you can easily do it in flask. > But now someone coming along sees the framework can do this The framework doesn't do auth. > they just take Armins excellent skeleton code I don't know which snippet you are talking about, but I believe that's about how to use Flask-OpenId extension. > but it is about a chain that was supposed to mean we could pick best of breed middleware and yet we are still in which framework is best debates Flask-openid is a wsgi chain. Flask app object is a wsgi object, and openid extension wraps it. Also, my concern would be ease of integration and extensiblity, not what level it works at.