First, thanks for the critiques - I'm not surprised there are better ways to write this as I'm just learning python.
Second, url mapping for me is trivial. Its a web app, not a web site. I would be fairly happy with totally opaque urls ala seaside as long as I didn't have to think about them. But url mapping isn't enough of a factor to make me choose pylons. I chose django because of the availability of geodjango, olwidigte, the admin, auth framework, and a number of other goodies. I don't get those with pylons. As I've already said, I'm happy with my solution. If I decide I need something else, I can change it, later, right? Development time drops exponentially with the number of files I have to edit to do a task. Bouncing over to urls.py every time I write another page view was a significant time sync (especially since I'm no regex maven - I use them seldom and always have to look them up and fiddle around with them for quite awhile to get them right). So, no, I would not be happier with pylons. I'm happy here with this modification, thanks. -Todd Blanchard On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:41 AM, bruno desthuilliers wrote: > If you really want routes and > rails-like controllers, you'd be way happier with Pylons. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
