Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
Daniel Fetchinson a écrit : (snip) The 1.x branch of tg is built on cherrypy, the 2.x branch is built on pylons. Both branches depend on external packages for most of their functionality which makes them very flexible. Django is monolithic Except that 1/ you can use each component (request handler/dispatcher, templating system and ORM) standalone, and 2/ you can use any other ORM or templating system. and was intended to be monolithic. highly integrated would be more accurate than monolithic IMHO. Of course you can customize it and use different components than the defaults, but after all *everything* is customizable since the source code is there and you can modify it. You don't need to touch the source to swap ORM or templating system. The point is that tg was designed with flexibility and customizability in mind, while django was designed with a monolithic infrastructure in mind. s/monolithic/integrated/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
On Dec 22, 2008, at 1:52 AM, Tino Wildenhain wrote: Philip Semanchuk wrote: ... I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen. From what I can tell Mako is nearly identical to all other template languages you might have seen (e.g. PHP style tags). Thats why I personally would not consider it. Its just much of a hassle to mix code and design this way. I prefer TAL (template attribute language, ZPT) [1] much over the other attempts I've seen ( and I've seen a lot) That's an excellent example of how Python can accommodate different tastes. =) I can't stand TAL; I find it awkward and unPythonic. Your comment makes sense, though. Mako and TAL have very different design philosophies, and if you really like one, you're probably going to find the other strange at best. Cheers Philip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Philip Semanchuk phi...@semanchuk.com wrote: On Dec 22, 2008, at 1:52 AM, Tino Wildenhain wrote: Philip Semanchuk wrote: ... I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen. From what I can tell Mako is nearly identical to all other template languages you might have seen (e.g. PHP style tags). Thats why I personally would not consider it. Its just much of a hassle to mix code and design this way. I prefer TAL (template attribute language, ZPT) [1] much over the other attempts I've seen ( and I've seen a lot) That's an excellent example of how Python can accommodate different tastes. =) I can't stand TAL; I find it awkward and unPythonic. Your comment makes sense, though. Mako and TAL have very different design philosophies, and if you really like one, you're probably going to find the other strange at best. I agree! :) And just for the record I prefer Mako :) (Not that I really use it at all) :P --JamesMills PS: Web Services FTW -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
I'd like to rewrite a Web 2.0 PHP application in Python with AJAX, and it seems like Django and Turbogears are the frameworks that have the most momentum. I'd like to use this opportunity to lower the load on servers, as the PHP application wasn't built to fit the number of users hammering the servers now. I'm concerned, though, that these frameworks they may be too specific to the tasks they were originally developped for (news articles, AFAIK). Do you think I should just use eg. CherryPy and some basic AJAX? The 1.x branch of tg is built on cherrypy, the 2.x branch is built on pylons. Both branches depend on external packages for most of their functionality which makes them very flexible. Django is monolithic and was intended to be monolithic. Of course you can customize it and use different components than the defaults, but after all *everything* is customizable since the source code is there and you can modify it. The point is that tg was designed with flexibility and customizability in mind, while django was designed with a monolithic infrastructure in mind. The 1.x branch of tg is stable and has been for years while the 2.x branch is in beta but will be released soon as a stable, production version. Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
Hi I'd like to rewrite a Web 2.0 PHP application in Python with AJAX, and it seems like Django and Turbogears are the frameworks that have the most momentum. I'd like to use this opportunity to lower the load on servers, as the PHP application wasn't built to fit the number of users hammering the servers now. I'm concerned, though, that these frameworks they may be too specific to the tasks they were originally developped for (news articles, AFAIK). Do you think I should just use eg. CherryPy and some basic AJAX? Thank you for any feedback. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Gilles Ganault nos...@nospam.com wrote: Hi I'd like to rewrite a Web 2.0 PHP application in Python with AJAX, and it seems like Django and Turbogears are the frameworks that have the most momentum. I'd like to use this opportunity to lower the load on servers, as the PHP application wasn't built to fit the number of users hammering the servers now. I'm concerned, though, that these frameworks they may be too specific to the tasks they were originally developped for (news articles, AFAIK). Do you think I should just use eg. CherryPy and some basic AJAX? Thank you for any feedback. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list No, they aren't very specific at all. Both frameworks allow configuration at nearly every level. The cool, slick admin interface might not be so useful depending on your application, but everything else has uses in just about any field. I only have experience with TG and cherrypy, TG for me is almost like cherrypy (I'm not sure if it still does, I've been out of the loop, but it used to use cherrypy under the hood), but a bit nicer to work with, especially if you have any AJAX. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
On Dec 21, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Gilles Ganault wrote: Hi I'd like to rewrite a Web 2.0 PHP application in Python with AJAX, and it seems like Django and Turbogears are the frameworks that have the most momentum. I don't have any practical experience with these, but I've done some research. My impression is that Pylons has more momentum than TG. The latter project has declared the 1.x branch to be a dead end, and they're working on a 2.0 branch that's not out yet. I could be wrong, but that's what I gathered from my reading. I'm concerned, though, that these frameworks they may be too specific to the tasks they were originally developped for (news articles, AFAIK). From the reading I did, I gathered that Django was really good if you want to do what Django is good at, but not as easy to customize as, say, Pylons. Pylons, on the other hand, is a little more complicated because it's made of several different parts, but the positive side of complicated is flexible. Do you think I should just use eg. CherryPy and some basic AJAX? Yes or no, depending on what you're trying to do! =) Good luck Philip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
Gilles Ganault a écrit : Hi I'd like to rewrite a Web 2.0 PHP application in Python with AJAX, and it seems like Django and Turbogears are the frameworks that have the most momentum. I'd like to use this opportunity to lower the load on servers, as the PHP application wasn't built to fit the number of users hammering the servers now. I'm concerned, though, that these frameworks they may be too specific to the tasks they were originally developped for (news articles, AFAIK). Do you think I should just use eg. CherryPy and some basic AJAX? I can't tell about Turbogears, but you're dead wrong if you think that there's anything specific to news articles in Django. It's *not* a CMS, it's a web programming framework, and is totally agnostic about what kind of application you're using it for. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
Philip Semanchuk a écrit : (snip) From the reading I did, I gathered that Django was really good if you want to do what Django is good at, but not as easy to customize as, say, Pylons. That was my first impression too, and was more or less true some years ago. After more experience, having gained a deeper knowledge of Django's internals, I can tell you this is just not true. You can customize it as you want - meaning: you can use any ORM (or no ORM at all) and any template language you want, as long as you don't intend to use django's ORM and template language related features (which just don't exist in Pylons). IOW : Django is just as flexible as Pylons (or pretty close to), but has more to offer if you stick to builtin components. NB : not to dismiss Pylons, which is a pretty great framework too, and use IMHO better default components (namely SQLAlchemy and Mako). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
On Dec 21, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Philip Semanchuk a écrit : (snip) From the reading I did, I gathered that Django was really good if you want to do what Django is good at, but not as easy to customize as, say, Pylons. That was my first impression too, and was more or less true some years ago. After more experience, having gained a deeper knowledge of Django's internals, I can tell you this is just not true. You can customize it as you want - meaning: you can use any ORM (or no ORM at all) and any template language you want, as long as you don't intend to use django's ORM and template language related features (which just don't exist in Pylons). IOW : Django is just as flexible as Pylons (or pretty close to), but has more to offer if you stick to builtin components. Based on what I read, I got the idea that Django *can* be as flexible as Pylons, but most people find it *easier* to take advantage of Pylons' flexibility. In other words, no one is saying Django is incapable, but that it is less focused on making it easy to allow developers to mix match components and more focused on providing a smooth tool with which to work. NB : not to dismiss Pylons, which is a pretty great framework too, and use IMHO better default components (namely SQLAlchemy and Mako). I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
Gilles Ganault nos...@nospam.com writes: Hi I'd like to rewrite a Web 2.0 PHP application in Python with AJAX, and it seems like Django and Turbogears are the frameworks that have the most momentum. I'd like to use this opportunity to lower the load on servers, as the PHP application wasn't built to fit the number of users hammering the servers now. I'm concerned, though, that these frameworks they may be too specific to the tasks they were originally developped for (news articles, AFAIK). Do you think I should just use eg. CherryPy and some basic AJAX? Thank you for any feedback. They're not specific in the sense that they only build certain types of applications. However, they do package their own batteries and expect applications to be designed a certain way. As long as you drink the kool-aid, everything is smooth sailing. That's what any framework banks on -- being useful to 85% of the web applications; not all. Even if they advertise themselves as such, it's just not true. My suggestion is web.py -- It too has its own set of conventions and philosophies, but in my experience it is the most loosely coupled in terms of internal dependencies. Import exactly what you want to use and deploy it the way that suits you. It gives you batteries but you have to pick and choose how to put the pieces together. Therefore, it takes a little longer to get running, but IMO that is the most flexibility you can ask for without writing your own servers and frameworks. Cheers. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
Philip Semanchuk wrote: ... I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen. From what I can tell Mako is nearly identical to all other template languages you might have seen (e.g. PHP style tags). Thats why I personally would not consider it. Its just much of a hassle to mix code and design this way. I prefer TAL (template attribute language, ZPT) [1] much over the other attempts I've seen ( and I've seen a lot) Cheers Tino [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_Attribute_Language smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
