anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
If so, could you provide a bullet list of things you preferred in Django? Thanks. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
First of all, I'd like to say that I think Web2py, and its maintainer Massimo, are awesome. =) I tried Web2py for a little while a couple months ago, but the biggest issue was poor documentation -- at the time, there was almost nothing. Now there's a whole book, online, but... Also, it was missing a few basic features Django had (session-by- session expiration for auto-logout, etc.), although I'm sure if I'd mentioned them to Massimo, he probably would've implemented them pretty quick. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
I've looked at it a couple of months ago. There are some great ideas behind it. Web2Py cons: 1. The first and biggest issue at the time was that there was no sufficient/accessible documentation available for free. The book was only available on scribd for free which is horrible. Now the book is available as a wiki and I applaud that. 2. It avoids explicit imports. Technically this might not be a bad thing, but if you've been developing in Python for some time feels very awkward (it doesn't feel right). 3. Coding convention. Uses all uppercase names all over the place, even where they don't refer to constants. 4. This is a very subjective reason. It's marketed as an enterprise framework. Django pros: 1. I'm familiar with it. I Know my way around it's documentation and codebase. I've actually used it to build real, working software. 2. GIS, django.contrib.gis makes all aspects of GIS related web development so trivial. Nothing can match that. 3. Admin, nothing can match that. 4. As a framework It has a beautiful design that is constantly improving. Where just writing code in web2py doesn't give me that feeling, things like avoiding explicit imports worry me. 5. The galaxy of reusable django apps. Even if most of them don't always apply to my problem I can take an idea and apply it to my problem. 6. The culture in the django community of releasing django-related code under permissive licences (BSD). And the whole culture in general. 7. Finding people to work with me on django projects is much easier than for any other Python framework. On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:48 PM, snfctech wrote: > If so, could you provide a bullet list of things you preferred in > Django? Thanks. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
Thanks for the reply, Wiiboy. I agree that web2py is cool and Massimo is a good guy. I'm still comparing the two frameworks and don't have a lot of preferences to list yet, but so far I prefer the way the online Django tutorial is written to the Overview/tutorial chapter of the web2py book. I also don't like all the unnecessary fluff that comes with web2py which I think is geared toward teaching students who don't know how to use VIM or a shell - like the weak text-editor, or the useless on-line designer. I would be interested to hear if anybody else has gotten far enough with web2py to discover any other idiosyncracies that made them go back to Django. On Feb 18, 7:26 am, Wiiboy wrote: > First of all, I'd like to say that I think Web2py, and its maintainer > Massimo, are awesome. =) > > I tried Web2py for a little while a couple months ago, but the biggest > issue was poor documentation -- at the time, there was almost > nothing. Now there's a whole book, online, but... > > Also, it was missing a few basic features Django had (session-by- > session expiration for auto-logout, etc.), although I'm sure if I'd > mentioned them to Massimo, he probably would've implemented them > pretty quick. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
@Vasil: thanks for the enumerated points. On Feb 18, 8:47 am, snfctech wrote: > Thanks for the reply, Wiiboy. > > I agree that web2py is cool and Massimo is a good guy. > > I'm still comparing the two frameworks and don't have a lot of > preferences to list yet, but so far I prefer the way the online Django > tutorial is written to the Overview/tutorial chapter of the web2py > book. I also don't like all the unnecessary fluff that comes with > web2py which I think is geared toward teaching students who don't know > how to use VIM or a shell - like the weak text-editor, or the useless > on-line designer. > > I would be interested to hear if anybody else has gotten far enough > with web2py to discover any other idiosyncracies that made them go > back to Django. > > On Feb 18, 7:26 am, Wiiboy wrote: > > > First of all, I'd like to say that I think Web2py, and its maintainer > > Massimo, are awesome. =) > > > I tried Web2py for a little while a couple months ago, but the biggest > > issue was poor documentation -- at the time, there was almost > > nothing. Now there's a whole book, online, but... > > > Also, it was missing a few basic features Django had (session-by- > > session expiration for auto-logout, etc.), although I'm sure if I'd > > mentioned them to Massimo, he probably would've implemented them > > pretty quick. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
I apologize for intruding and try not to be partisan. I will not list pros and cons since this is not the place for me to do so. I would just like to make clarifications about things being said: 1) web2py comes with a web based IDE but you do not have to use it. You can disabled it or can even remove its source completely and nothing breaks. web2py does not maintain any meta-data about apps and you can write/edit them using vim or emacs in the bash shell as you do for Django. Here (http://vimeo.com/879939) is a video about that but it is two years old. web2py.py -h for command line options. The internal folder structure is close to Django since took a lof of inspiration from it. I used Django before developing web2py. 2) In web2py we try to follow PEP8. PEP8 says about Constants Constants are usually declared on a module level and written in all capital letters with underscores separating words. We treat two types of classes as constants: helpers and validators. For various reasons: 1) changing class attribute may not be thread safe and one app may affect another app so users should treat them as constants; 2) make them easily recognizable (hour helpers are HTML, DIV, A, SPAN, and they provide a server-side representation of the DOM). 3) Avoid name conflict with classes and variables defined by the user. 3) web2py license is GPL but because web2py is not imported by apps, instead it executes apps, we made is very clear in the license that we make no claim or restriction on the license of the apps. Apps need web2py to run but you can distribute them under any license you like including closed source bundled with the official web2py binary. This is more permissive than BSD. Almost all the example of apps are released under BSD. The code itself is GPL to prevent developers from creating a closed source derivative instead of supporting the main branch (something that BSD would instead permit). 4) web2py has something called admin (not equivalent to Django's admin, Django does not have something equivalent web2py's admin, the closest think would be Django Ray) and something called appadmin (this is the equivalent of Django's admin but does not compete, Dango's admin is superior). Web2py's admin and appadmin are both designed for administrator and not for users. 5) In web2py there is nothing like geodjango but there are two groups working on it: a student is doing an MSc thesis about this at GeoInformatics at ITC in Netherlands and there is a project on launchpad. I am not involved so I do not know much. 6) The issue of executing vs importing is a complex one. It has pros and cons. In Django templates are not "imported", but are executed. In web2py , we do the same with models and controllers (which you call views) even if they are pure Python code because we believe that as the templates need a context (the dict returned by the action) so do the models and the actions (they need a request object, an environment, and the security permissions implied by them). You CAN still import any third party module as you do normally. This approach allows us to edit any app file and never have to restart the server (not even in production). This also allows programming patterns that I do not think would be possible otherwise. Here is an example: http://groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_thread/thread/dcbb1b8ee8fde952 Massimo On Feb 18, 10:47 am, snfctech wrote: > Thanks for the reply, Wiiboy. > > I agree that web2py is cool and Massimo is a good guy. > > I'm still comparing the two frameworks and don't have a lot of > preferences to list yet, but so far I prefer the way the online Django > tutorial is written to the Overview/tutorial chapter of the web2py > book. I also don't like all the unnecessary fluff that comes with > web2py which I think is geared toward teaching students who don't know > how to use VIM or a shell - like the weak text-editor, or the useless > on-line designer. > > I would be interested to hear if anybody else has gotten far enough > with web2py to discover any other idiosyncracies that made them go > back to Django. > > On Feb 18, 7:26 am, Wiiboy wrote: > > > First of all, I'd like to say that I think Web2py, and its maintainer > > Massimo, are awesome. =) > > > I tried Web2py for a little while a couple months ago, but the biggest > > issue was poor documentation -- at the time, there was almost > > nothing. Now there's a whole book, online, but... > > > Also, it was missing a few basic features Django had (session-by- > > session expiration for auto-logout, etc.), although I'm sure if I'd > > mentioned them to Massimo, he probably would've implemented them > > pretty quick. -- 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
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM, mdipierro wrote: > I apologize for intruding and try not to be partisan. I will not list > pros and cons since this is not the place for me to do so. > I would just like to make clarifications about things being said: And I would like to clarify some of your clarifications: > 2) In web2py we try to follow PEP8. PEP8 says about Constants So does Django. I'm not sure why you present this as a point of difference -- PEP8 compliance is a documented part of our contributions procedure [1]. [1] http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/#coding-style I'm sure you will be able to point at places where we slip in this particular claim. However, I would also point out that PEP 8 starts with the admonition that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and directs attention to PEP20 - specifically, the directive that "Readability counts". > 3) web2py license is GPL but because web2py is not imported by apps, > instead it executes apps, we made is very clear in the license that we > make no claim or restriction on the license of the apps. Apps need > web2py to run but you can distribute them under any license you like > including closed source bundled with the official web2py binary. This > is more permissive than BSD. Almost all the example of apps are > released under BSD. The code itself is GPL to prevent developers from > creating a closed source derivative instead of supporting the main > branch (something that BSD would instead permit). Regarding licensing: I have no desire to get into a "whose license is better" flamewar. You writes the code, you picks the license. That said: IANAL, but I would humbly suggest that the licensing situation isn't anywhere near as simple as you think it is -- especially if you're "modifying" the GPL with explanatory statements. You may claim that your annotated GPL is "more permissive" than the BSD. I wish you all the luck in the world convincing the lawyers of a VC company of your claim when they come to do due diligence on the IP of the closed source product you have just developed. Even if I am, in fact, completely wrong on this last point, the *perception* that I *might* be right is an important consideration, especially when dealing with corporate clients. And while your concern for the sanctity of the Django codebase is most welcome, I would also humbly suggest that the risks presented by a commercial fork are *much* lower that you think they are. The value of Django isn't just the source code - it's in a recognizable trademark (and everything that trademark stands for), the reputation of the core team in maintaining the project, and in the community surrounding the project. In fact, Django has already survived a commercial forking attempt, and that attempt failed spectacularly -- both because they weren't able to offer any of the benefits of the existing Django community, and because they made a pigs ear in their use of trademarks (for which they were soundly slapped). Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
Hi, On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Regarding licensing: I have no desire to get into a "whose license is > better" flamewar. You writes the code, you picks the license. The way I see it, Massimo was just addressing the point about Django culture and permissive licenses by stating that the situation is similiar for web2py, other than the fact that web2py itself is licensed under the GPL (with annotations?). The only rather dubious claim I see concerning this is the "more permissive than BSD" claim since Django apps can also be distributed "under any license you like including closed source". Regards, Eugene Wee -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
As a newbie of sorts I started by trying out both Web2Py and Django at the same time. I found Web2Py to somehow be more elegant, and in fact liked the coding style in the source better that what I found in Django, or can say at least I preferred the structure and format of the code I saw. The documentation at the time for both frameworks at the time was not that hot. There was the first edition Django book which was outdated and very frustrating to work with while Django was moving to another revision and there was not a Web2Py book out yet. But one thing Django had going for it was more books about it on the horizion, Addison Wesley's Python Web Development with Django was published while I was in the early stages of comparing Web2Py and Django and I bought it as soon as it was published. That book provided the needed clarity and overview I needed to continue. Also where I got cold feet with Web2Py was when it was time to apply the framework to a project with a legacy. The project twice before had been refactored/ ported to other platforms and frameworks. We had problems in the past with products that fell out of support or were hard to outsource expertise in. So in the end going with Django was more attractive at the bargain table with the non-programming persons involved with this project because of its larger mind-share, market-share. There was a need to error on the side of caution. If we would of had a senior Python programmer in-house perhaps the decision would of been different. In retrospect its impossible to say if the gotcha's would been greater with Django than Web2py. Anyhow the future though I still am keeping Web2Py in mind. In my opinion frameworks should be considered on a project by project basis and Web2Py could be better than Django in some situations. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
As a newbie of sorts I started by trying out both Web2Py and Django at the same time. I found Web2Py to somehow be more elegant, and in fact liked the coding style in the source better that what I found in Django, or can say at least I preferred the structure and format of the code I saw. The documentation at the time for both frameworks at the time was not that hot. There was the first edition Django book which was outdated and very frustrating to work with while Django was moving to another revision and there was not a Web2Py book out yet. But one thing Django had going for it was more books about it on the horizion, Addison Wesley's Python Web Development with Django was published while I was in the early stages of comparing Web2Py and Django and I bought it as soon as it was published. That book provided the needed clarity and overview I needed to continue. Also where I got cold feet with Web2Py was when it was time to apply the framework to a project with a legacy. The project twice before had been refactored/ ported to other platforms and frameworks. We had problems in the past with products that fell out of support or were hard to outsource expertise in. So in the end going with Django was more attractive at the bargain table with the non-programming persons involved with this project because of its larger mind-share, market- share. There was a need to error on the side of caution. If we would of had a senior Python programmer in-house perhaps the decision would of been different. In retrospect its impossible to say if the gotcha's would been greater with Django than Web2py. Anyhow the future though I still am keeping Web2Py in mind. In my opinion frameworks should be considered on a project by project basis and Web2Py could be better than Django in some situations. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
Sorry Russ, I did not say nor implied that any of the points above were distinctive or unique. I just tried to clarify some issues raised by other users here. I was careful to only make comparison that were favorable to Django (the admin for example). I realize I am a guest here. I do not think that web2py is fully PEP8 compliant and probably Django does a better job at that. About the license. We do not annotate GPL we just clarify that the license does not apply to applications that require web2py but only to products that contain web2py source. Very much like FreeBSD is BSD even if compiled with GCC which is GPL. If you bundle your app with web2py you just have to state which files belong to your app and which ones are web2py files. I did not mean say that the web2py license (GPL) is more permissive than Django's license (BSD). I meant to say that not enforcing any license on applications is more permissive then BSD. For example, web2py users can release their apps under any license they like and only need to say "requires web2py" while if they were to be bound by the BSD they would have to include the BSD copyright notice, the disclaimer, and comply with BSD advertisement requirements (even if the app itself may not be BSD). Notice I am not making any statement about Django here. These legal issue are beyond me. web2py would not have existed without Django so thank you all. Massimo On Feb 19, 2:41 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:37 PM, mdipierro > wrote: > > I apologize for intruding and try not to be partisan. I will not list > > pros and cons since this is not the place for me to do so. > > I would just like to make clarifications about things being said: > > And I would like to clarify some of your clarifications: > > > 2) In web2py we try to follow PEP8. PEP8 says about Constants > > So does Django. I'm not sure why you present this as a point of > difference -- PEP8 compliance is a documented part of our > contributions procedure [1]. > > [1]http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/#coding-s... > > I'm sure you will be able to point at places where we slip in this > particular claim. However, I would also point out that PEP 8 starts > with the admonition that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of > little minds", and directs attention to PEP20 - specifically, the > directive that "Readability counts". > > > 3) web2py license is GPL but because web2py is not imported by apps, > > instead it executes apps, we made is very clear in the license that we > > make no claim or restriction on the license of the apps. Apps need > > web2py to run but you can distribute them under any license you like > > including closed source bundled with the official web2py binary. This > > is more permissive than BSD. Almost all the example of apps are > > released under BSD. The code itself is GPL to prevent developers from > > creating a closed source derivative instead of supporting the main > > branch (something that BSD would instead permit). > > Regarding licensing: I have no desire to get into a "whose license is > better" flamewar. You writes the code, you picks the license. > > That said: IANAL, but I would humbly suggest that the licensing > situation isn't anywhere near as simple as you think it is -- > especially if you're "modifying" the GPL with explanatory statements. > You may claim that your annotated GPL is "more permissive" than the > BSD. I wish you all the luck in the world convincing the lawyers of a > VC company of your claim when they come to do due diligence on the IP > of the closed source product you have just developed. > > Even if I am, in fact, completely wrong on this last point, the > *perception* that I *might* be right is an important consideration, > especially when dealing with corporate clients. > > And while your concern for the sanctity of the Django codebase is most > welcome, I would also humbly suggest that the risks presented by a > commercial fork are *much* lower that you think they are. The value of > Django isn't just the source code - it's in a recognizable trademark > (and everything that trademark stands for), the reputation of the core > team in maintaining the project, and in the community surrounding the > project. In fact, Django has already survived a commercial forking > attempt, and that attempt failed spectacularly -- both because they > weren't able to offer any of the benefits of the existing Django > community, and because they made a pigs ear in their use of trademarks > (for which they were soundly slapped). > > Yours, > Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
I've noticed that there have been a lot of things in common: Web2py _didn't_ have very good docs, at least relative to Django's (which are spectacular), but now that the Web2py book is available online, that issue is kind of moot. Admin -- Web2py has two different Admins, one which doesn't have a Django equivalent (lets you manage apps, etc. from it, pretty handy) and a not-as-good-as-Django's-Admin appadmin. Although it certainly could do the job for my tiny site =) And the explicit vs. implicit imports: Personally, I love the fact that the request object is available all over the place, including models, and that I don't have to do any importing. My final complaint about Web2py is its templating engine: if I want my Dad to do the HTML on my website, I'd rather not make him learn "Python", per se, rather, I'd like him to learn a slightly different but less strict of a syntax templating engine. Ok, I'm done. Feel free to comment on anything above (including you Massimo =) -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
I'd rather stay out and limit myself to rectify incorrect statements if any. For example I'll say the documentation is not new. It has been there for 2 years, it's just that was not free and cost $12. It is actually old now. It still does not describe lots of new functionality and we are trying to catch up. I really wish our communities were friendlier to each other, but I take full responsibility for this. I also think and stated many times that comparisons and discussions like this are in my view positive because they can help both improve. I strongly believe the future of python web framework is positively correlated and not anti-correlated. We may as well try help each other. Some differences like the template engine syntax are a matter of taste and it is good that users have a choice. No size fits all. I happy to have a similar discussion on the web2py since it can help us improve. Massimo On Feb 19, 8:38 am, Wiiboy wrote: > I've noticed that there have been a lot of things in common: > Web2py _didn't_ have very good docs, at least relative to Django's > (which are spectacular), but now that the Web2py book is available > online, that issue is kind of moot. > > Admin -- Web2py has two different Admins, one which doesn't have a > Django equivalent (lets you manage apps, etc. from it, pretty handy) > and a not-as-good-as-Django's-Admin appadmin. Although it certainly > could do the job for my tiny site =) > > And the explicit vs. implicit imports: Personally, I love the fact > that the request object is available all over the place, including > models, and that I don't have to do any importing. > > My final complaint about Web2py is its templating engine: if I want my > Dad to do the HTML on my website, I'd rather not make him learn > "Python", per se, rather, I'd like him to learn a slightly different > but less strict of a syntax templating engine. > > Ok, I'm done. Feel free to comment on anything above (including you > Massimo =) -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
On 19 fév, 15:38, Wiiboy wrote: > And the explicit vs. implicit imports: Personally, I love the fact > that the request object is available all over the place, including > models, and that I don't have to do any importing. As far as I'm concerned, it's a definitive No-No. The request is only meaningfull in the context of a request handler (whether you call it 'view' or 'controller'). The model part must *not* depend on it. And it's not a dogmatic POV - it's based on working experience with frameworks that happily mixed orthogonal concerns and ended being a major PITA. -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
On 19 fév, 10:35, NoviceSortOf wrote: (snip) > In my opinion frameworks should be considered on a project by project > basis Well, if you have enough time to learn and master a dozen or more different frameworks, that might be a sensible policy. As far as I'm concerned, having to deal with Zope2, Plone (different versions of...), Django, Drupal (different versions of), Spip (different versions of...), a couple exotic PHP apps, raw PHP, jQuery, Prototype, raw javascript, SQL (in at least 2 of it's variants), css, html, and quite a few other programming / configuration / domain-specific / whatever languages is enough to fill my brain. While Django is possibly not the miracle solution that will cure cancer and solve world hunger, it happens to be the most usable web developpment environment I've worked with so far (ok, I've only been doing web development for more than 7 years and didn't tried more than a dozen python framework so I may not have enough experience to comment, but anyway...). And it's the only one I've worked with that managed to consistenly improve release after release, since the 0.94? (not sure of the exact version number) days. To make a long story short, I now love Django for the very same reasons I love Python : it might not be the most elegant or "pure" solution, but from a practical POV, it mostly stays out of your way and helps you get the job done. I whish I could say the same of some other technos I have to work with :-/ My 2 cents... -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
On Feb 19, 2:14 pm, bruno desthuilliers
wrote:
> On 19 fév, 15:38, Wiiboy wrote:
>
> > And the explicit vs. implicit imports: Personally, I love the fact
> > that the request object is available all over the place, including
> > models, and that I don't have to do any importing.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it's a definitive No-No. The request is only
> meaningfull in the context of a request handler (whether you call it
> 'view' or 'controller'). The model part must *not* depend on it. And
> it's not a dogmatic POV - it's based on working experience with
> frameworks that happily mixed orthogonal concerns and ended being a
> major PITA.
Our definition of models is a little different than Django's and this
may lead to some confusion. We have two app sub-folders: models/ and
modules/. Files in models/ are executed and they contain code that
prepares the environment seen by controllers and templates. Files in
modules/ can be imported normally. It is custom for web2py users to
put table definitions in models/ but you could very well put them in
modules/ and import them as you do in Django. The reason we normally
put we table definitions in models/ is because out tables contain meta
information relative to presentation of the information, validation,
access control and internationalization, and for these to work they
require a request object. Think for example of a table with a field
that is never displayed but always contain the ip address of the
client who updated the record. We would just do
db.define_table(,Field('client_ip',update=request.client,writable=False))
If you were to put such code in a module/ as opposed to a model/ you
would have the problem of passing a request object to it and you'd
probably end up with more logic in controllers. Yet I do not know
Django that well so you probably have an equivalent way of achieving
the same.
Another reason to do what we do is that we support multiple database
connections. If we put table definition in a module we would have
somehow to specify which database connection to use (and this also may
depend on other request parameters).
Anyway putting table definitions in models has disadvantages too. The
major one is that if you want to run them in your own python code (not
the framework) you still need to use the framework API.
I am not saying web2py approach is better than Django's here. I am
just saying we tried Django's before implementing it this was. This
design was not an accident but a consequence of carefully considering
pros and cons. We took a pragmatic approach not a purist one.
Massimo
--
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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:16 PM, mdipierro wrote: > Sorry Russ, > > I did not say nor implied that any of the points above were > distinctive or unique. I just tried to clarify some issues raised by > other users here. No problems - I'm not trying to accuse you of anything nefarious. I just wanted to counterclarify the same points. > About the license. We do not annotate GPL we just clarify that the > license does not apply to applications that require web2py but only to > products that contain web2py source. Very much like FreeBSD is BSD > even if compiled with GCC which is GPL. If you bundle your app with > web2py you just have to state which files belong to your app and which > ones are web2py files. I did not mean say that the web2py license > (GPL) is more permissive than Django's license (BSD). I meant to say > that not enforcing any license on applications is more permissive then > BSD. For example, web2py users can release their apps under any > license they like and only need to say "requires web2py" while if they > were to be bound by the BSD they would have to include the BSD > copyright notice, the disclaimer, and comply with BSD advertisement > requirements (even if the app itself may not be BSD). Notice I am not > making any statement about Django here. These legal issue are beyond > me. Again, I'm not sure the licensing situation is as simple as you seem to think it is. This licensing arrangement you describe is much closer to the situation for Django than it is for Web2py. *Django* uses the BSD license. If you download and redistribute *Django's* code, you are bound by the BSD *for your redistribution of Django*. If you write your own app or library that calls into Django's code, you are free to use whatever license you want *for your own code*. Django's BSD license makes no claim or restriction on the way you license your own code - hence, you are able to distribute your own project under any license you want. Under the terms of the BSD, you can even distribute a modified version of Django (without source code) as long as you retain and display the copyright notice. However, This *isn't* a claim you can make unambiguously about the GPL. The GPL is *specifically* designed to prevent people from leveraging free software to produce proprietary software. Yes, I are free to choose whatever license you want for your own code, but the terms of the GPL mean that your own choice of license on your own project *may* affect whether or not I can distribute Web2py along with my code. The comparison with GCC isn't valid, because we're talking about code running in an interpreted language (Python). GCC is undeniably a program that takes input, and provides output. There is no internal linking of the subject code (FreeBSD) by the GPL licensed program (GCC). However, as soon as you say "import web2py" or "import django", you're no longer talking about clean execution. You're potentially talking about linking, and this is where a problem arises. GPL2 -- which is what web2py uses -- is vague about what constitutes "linking" in an interpreted language (for the record, GPL3 is less vague, but not in a way that particularly helps your interpretation). This vagueness is where the problem lies (and why I said "may" a couple of paragraphs back). The GPL question came up in the Django community about 6 months ago, which prompted Jacob to publish a set of 20 questions that points out the ambiguities that exists: http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ The ensuing discussion demonstrates the depth of the ambiguities. :-) The comments from VanL (who I believe is Van Lindberg, who *is* a lawyer) are particularly enlightening. However, again: * IANAL * He who writes the code gets to pick the license. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they are wrong for choosing the GPL. The GPL is very well designed for what it tries to achieve. If those goals are compatible with your own goals, then by all means choose the GPL. Whatever license you choose, I implore anyone to be fully aware of the consequences of your choices before you make your selection. * If you intend to use code with a particular license (whatever that license may be), you should seek whatever professional legal advice you require to clarify the situation with your own projects. > web2py would not have existed without Django so thank you all. And thanks to you for keeping us honest. A software monoculture is never a good thing. Having alternatives to Django means the Python community as a whole is a richer. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Yes, I are > free to choose whatever license you want for your own code, but the > terms of the GPL mean that your own choice of license on your own > project *may* affect whether or not I can distribute Web2py along with > my code. Let's try that sentence again, this time without the pronoun dance: Yes, I am free to choose whatever license I want for my own code, but the terms of the GPL mean that my choice of license on my own project *may* affect whether I can distribute Web2Py along with my code. Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- 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.
Re: anybody tried web2py and gone back to Django?
I tried web2py and haven't gone back, though sometimes it is tempting when I see so much Django work available! On Feb 18, 7:48 am, snfctech wrote: > If so, could you provide a bullet list of things you preferred in > Django? Thanks. -- 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.
