> > ...well, the local folks are friendly enough. > > Last I washed upon these sands, capsized on the first leg of my maiden > voyage, I was advised that my vessel, django 0.95.1-1, running on > Linux Debian Etch, was a relic beyond salvage. > > So back in port, I smash a magnum of champagne across the bow of my > sleek new django 0.96-1.1, running on Linux Debian Lenny, and cheer as > she slides down the weighs. > > I fire up Python (2.4.4), import django, and enter django.VERSION... > oops? What's this 0.96.09999....994? Supposed to be 0.96.1-1. > > Well let's try django-admin.py startproject mysite... Whooo ABANDON > SHIP! SyntaxError: invalid syntax. > > So here I am again... stranded on the sand. > > Ok, ok... I know you Windows salts have no sympathy for we who choose > Linux. More's the pity. And we who choose Debian are a still smaller > minority. But, damnit, hold the flame war, in my experience, Debian > has the best package management system on the globe. It let's us > choose stable, testing, and unstable versions of our applications. In > my case, I value stability in my web applications. But 'pears to me > that django doesn't offer that, at least for my crowd. > > Indeed, during my previous visit to these climes, one bystander urged > me to download the SVN version of django for the latest and the > greatest. But this advice scares the socks off me. How can I promise > my clients stability when I'm gamboling on the cutting edge? Moreover, > it makes me nervous as heck to consider compromising my file system > with apt-alien files, when apt and aptitude have served me so well > over these five years. Indeed, I've never run into the kinds of > problems of starting up a new application that I've seen with django. > > So where do I turn? Pylons? TurboGears? Ruby on Rails? Wait until > django stabilizes sufficiently for conservative folks like me? > > Advisories welcomed. > > All the best, > > Lloyd > > > Hmmmm,
I have that very same version running without syntax errors on Goobuntu, with all the apts you'd care to get. To be honest, I downloaded the tarball, unpacked it and used the Python package management system to install, which goes something like this: tar xvzf django-0.96.tar.gz cd django-0.96 sudo python setup.py install and voila`... There is nothing terribly unstable about the bleeding edge of django. In many ways, you can expect the SVN version to be most complete as they use an agile development system and the SVN stuff is a real release. Python in use is version 2.43. I have also had success with django on Mandriva 2008 (with Python 2.51). A word to the wise... if you want django on windows with that boneheaded IIS version 6.0 or later, you need version 0.95 with PyISAPIe as an accessory. TurboGears would be a terrible choice. Python does not do well on threads and has been known to lock up solid when executing a fork() out of a thread. Also, unless you feel your webserver should use very little of your computers resources, the threaded approach of TurboGears may not give you what you want. Python folk made a design decision way back to implement a Global Interpreter Lock that means one thread runs at a time in any process, even if you have 100 threads and 32 processor cores, one thread will be running on one processor. So while TurboGears has a very short learning curve, it is not really for production performance. Zope might be the ticket for you if you don't have patience for Django. The Zope Enterprise Objects running as parallel processes do provide high performance. Most people who have used it call ZEO the bee's knees. Zope will work with its own production server, or with apache, or IIS up through 5.0, or even boa. Zope will work with most databases, and it it also has its own, called ZODB, and the O is for Object. The granularity of the security is unsurpassed, and the support community is large. Given all that, for the particular job Django was designed for, nothing can touch it. Now, if you care to fall down one level, there are two frameworks of significance. SqlAlchemy and Formalchemy. I have a program which takes two command-line parameters and imports Sqlalchemy. One of the command-line parameters is the url for the data base, and the other is the path to a csv (comma separated variable) file. The program probes the url to determine which database it is talking to, then looks at the csv, taking the first row as column names. Going down the columns, it guesses the type, then it creates the table and loads it with the data from the csv. That program is nothing special, everyone would say, I am sure, but it becomes special when you discover that it does these things in 98 lines of code. So you have: TurboGears (Threads limits the performance) Django (Best for web-publishing applications and pretty good at most other things) Zope (lots of options, production performance, and huge) Plone (Content Management on top of Zope) and then you have the next level down, frameworks.... The most popular are CherryPy (used by TurboGears), but basically for Programmers SqlAlchemy/FormAlchemy/Migration, again, for programmers Spyce (for webmasters--could be combined with a database framework for some quick development) If I need something in two hours, I reach for Django. If I have a longer time for development, I lean toward SQLAlchemy. So now you have it from a professional Python programmer who uses linux, and turns down high-paying jobs for converting free software to Microsoft .NET. And, oh yes, I was once the QA manager for a linux distribution. I am wondering how you installed that Django you speak of. Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
