Well, I don't want to derail the topic, but the main difference is both patch and helper are projects to get django more integrated with appengine so that people can concentrate more on getting their application working using the Django they know, than figuring out how to work around the differences appengine introduces.
utilities is just a bunch of, well, utilities, to make working with appengine easier, and is not django specific at all. It started because I recognized that there was no session api for appengine at all. Both helper and patch have gotten Django sessions working, and I'm not sure what level of support they offer for cache in django. I created appengine-utilities specifically to handle sessions and cache the best possible way on appengine, taking advantage of memcache to provide the best performance. On Oct 21, 12:53 pm, johnP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you both for the responses. Alexander - it is great to hear > that you have had a good experience. Joseph - I'm happy to hear that > you are using the Patch, probably for similar reasons to what I need - > authentication, etc. I didn't quite understand the different niches > for your utilities, and for the Patch. It's good to at least > understand that they are complementary. > > If there are other people who have some feedback with their > experiences with the Utilities & Patch vs the Helper - please let us > know. I'm sure there are lots of people trying to make decisions on > what to base their applications upon, and the more data-points, the > better. > > johnP > > On Oct 21, 6:19 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm using appengine-patch to implement Django for a site I'm building, > > and it's been very easy. Like Alex, I went to use that instead of > > helper because I intend to handle authentication differently than what > > comes default with webapp and django helper. > > > With the inclusion of zip import to appengine-patch it saved me a ton > > of time. > > > Now, not to toot my own horn, but I did integrate appengine-utilities > > session and flash into my implementation also. That was extremely > > easy. Also, writing an authentication backend to support the google > > accounts was a snap as well. > > > On Oct 21, 12:58 am, Alexander Kojevnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > About a month ago I migratedwww.muspy.comfromwebappto Django 1.0 > > > using app-engine-patch. The main reason was to provide a custom > > > authentication instead of the Google's. > > > > Regarding your questions: > > > > 1. The only issue I have > > > ishttp://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=772 > > > but I believe it's not specific to app-engine-patch. > > > > 2. I depend on < 200 lines of code provided by app-engine-patch to > > > ease the implementation of custom authentication. This code could be > > > easily rewritten or integrated to your app should you decide to > > > migrate to vanilla Django. Migration from the datastore would take > > > most time anyway. > > > > 3. See above. Very easy and very flexible. > > > > 4. After removing unused files from Django, my entire project is about > > > 500 files. I didn't use zip imports and don't plan to. > > > > Hope this helps and let me know if you have other questions. > > > > -- > > > Alexwww.muspy.com > > > > On Oct 21, 7:56 am, johnP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, all - > > > > > I was curious if some users might provide some feedback about using > > > > AppEngine Helper, Utilities, and Patch (or nothing at all...:)) > > > > > Initially, appengine Helper seemed like a safe choice - because it was > > > > sanctioned by the appengine team, and helped bridge the gap between > > > > writing in pure django and writing on appengine. It has over 1500 > > > > downloads. It seems to continue being supported at a "moderate" pace > > > > (is it a 20% project for someone at Google)? > > > > > Appengine Patch seems very interesting - it promises to allow you to > > > > write in pure Django, excluding models. This makes sense to me. It > > > > seems like it is being developed, and initially - looked like it is > > > > well made. Other positives are the included zip imports, and the > > > > possibility of using my own authentication. My primary concern is > > > > that it is a layer that resides at the core of my application, and is > > > > a potential source of issues (that are not being addressed by a large > > > > community such as Google and Django community). > > > > > What I am looking for are the following: > > > > 1. Reliability. > > > > 2. Ability to write as closely to pure Django 1.0 as possible. > > > > 3 Using my own user authentication, rather than Google's > > > > (wonderful) solution. > > > > 4. Zip imports. > > > > > Can people provide their impressions, positive and negative, with > > > > these different approaches? They all seem very exciting - but an open > > > > discussion would be welcomed. Thanks - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
