On Apr 28, 8:42 am, Randy Syring <[email protected]> wrote: > > It works, but that's a pain if you need to put your Pylons > > authorization system around it. As JonathanV said, Pylons is not > > really structured to plug in mini-apps the way Django is. > > This was the killer for Pylons for me, see: > > http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss/browse_thread/thread/14...
Regarding the discussion of the model over there, IMHO the model almost never should reside *within* the Pylons app, except for very simple sites. It should be a separate package that all your apps can import. As far as "plugins", it seems to me that the things people are trying to do are do-able with Pylons, but there's just not a standard approach, which could be good or bad, depending on your perspective. > I would have loved to use Pylons, it was exactly what I wanted, except > for that issue. We had to be able to modularize our code and plug-and- > play with other apps (including things like sharing a main > configuration, template, DB, etc.). > > I ended up creating a different framework with the intention of having > it be like Pylons in spirit but like Django in modularity. > > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysapp > > If Pylons ever ends up incorporating something that would allow you to > modularize parts of the app, I would most likely drop my own and move > over. I really hate maintaining *another* web framework, but the > necessity was there. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
