I like the idea of an execmodels.py file, it could create a list of
model names to execute.. Not yaml or cfg because that means web2py
would require yet another library
Massimo, tell me where this code *should* go and I will work on it
since this is a very important feature to me. Lets draft up a
One thing I thought about was to have the models loading wrap around
an exception holder in run_models_in something like
delay_process = []
for model in models:
...
try:
restricted()
except RequirementMissing:
delay_process.append(model)
while 1:
new_delay_process
Here is my proposal:
define the following:
request.models=(
('*','db.py'),
('*','model1.py'),
('*','model2.py'),
('default','model3.py'),
('default/a,default/b','model4.py'),
)
it specifies the order in which models should be executed. For each
row, the first item specifies whether the model
one we agree with the syntax, this is easy. The main issue is making
sure it works with bytecode compiled models.
On Jun 10, 11:20 am, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
Here is my proposal:
define the following:
request.models=(
('*','db.py'),
('*','model1.py'),
('*','model2.py'),
What if I needed two controllers to share the same model? Would I then
place two definitions in request.models?
Not 0.py that is not a valid python filename. Python modules/variables
cannot start with numbers.
how about just a simple exec.py that gets loaded before everything?
--
Thadeus
On Jun 10, 11:20 am, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
Here is my proposal:
define the following:
request.models=(
('*','db.py'),
('*','model1.py'),
('*','model2.py'),
('default','model3.py'),
('default/a,default/b','model4.py'),
)
it specifies the order in which models should
How will the exec_models.py be formatted
Could it potentially be executed in an environment given a list, and
append or overwrite this list with the model definitions
exec_models = [
'settings.py', 'db.py', 'auth.py', 'tag.py', 'post.py',
'comments.py', 'menu.py', 'other.py',
]
... this all _sounds_ great, but for one thing:
It places a dependency (an import or setup list) FAR AWAY from
where it should be declared!!!
This _will_ (sooner or later) become a problem.
Why not have something _less global_ (why _one_ config file???), and
more component / containment
That's kind of what i was getting at with my suggestion listed above
in some pseudocode.
Let the model try to grab it's required modules if it can't find one
it'll just raise an exception and it'll be tried again later.
Eventually all dependencies that are solvable will work themselves
out...
If we are going to work on this we may as well solve a different
problem.
Executing models take time. If you have 500 tables each defined it its
own file, it takes lots of time. Yet not all actions need all tables
so we may want to implement a dependency not just among models but
among actions
You need to pay attention to order, but you can always use
variables... For more examples see Massimo's auditing slice at web2py
slices and make sure to check out the comments... you can var out
fields, table headers and probably more stuff as well like auditing
fields...
Here is a working
On Jun 10, 3:44 pm, Doug Warren doug.war...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Yarko Tymciurak
resultsinsoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
More discussion, thoughts?
(maybe this should move to the web2py developer's thread?)
As my request is still 'pending' I'd ask to keep the
On Jun 10, 3:44 pm, Thadeus Burgess thade...@thadeusb.com wrote:
This is what I desire from this
Web2py applications to be importable python modules
Along with [A] your models immediately become python modules that you
can import. This solves my need to share models between web2py apps.'
On Jun 10, 1:17 pm, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
If we are going to work on this we may as well solve a different
problem.
Executing models take time. If you have 500 tables each defined it its
own file, it takes lots of time. Yet not all actions need all tables
so we may want to
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Yarko Tymciurak
resultsinsoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
More discussion, thoughts?
(maybe this should move to the web2py developer's thread?)
As my request is still 'pending' I'd ask to keep the discussion here
so I can contribute.
The conclusion is right but it is more complicated than that. This is
not a syntactical issue.
Let' say in a model we have:
db.define_table('a',Field('b',default=request.client))
This code MUST be executed. There is no way to import it because
request.client only exist when the request
This is what I desire from this
Web2py applications to be importable python modules
Along with [A] your models immediately become python modules that you
can import. This solves my need to share models between web2py apps.'
Web2py has a Top down approach, where other frameworks use a down-up
This code MUST be executed. There is no way to import it because
request.client only exist when the request arrives and we do not want
to re import modules on every request.
Flask accomplishes this perfectly by placing the request in a context
thread local. It only exists the the thread local
Flask has a clever mechanism that web2py also uses internally in DAL.
It partially addresses the problem:
Consider this example:
http://github.com/mitsuhiko/flask/blob/master/examples/flaskr/flaskr.py
Consider the action login. request is a global object that acts as a
proxy. Any attribute of
From the Flask documentation:
For example Flask uses thread local objects internally so that you
don’t have to pass objects around from function to function within a
request in order to stay threadsafe. While this is a really easy
approach and saves you a lot of time, it also does not scale well
This is a false problem.
Flask and web2py are not asynchronous like Tornado. This is not a
problem nor a limitation but a difference in design that determine the
way one program web applications. Scalability and speed have to do
with database bottleneck more than everything else.
About the
from the Tornado page Tornado comes with limited support for WSGI.
However, since WSGI does not support non-blocking requests, you cannot
use any of the asynchronous/non-blocking features of Tornado in your
application if you choose to use WSGI instead of Tornado's HTTP
server.
On Jun 10, 11:33
Thanks for the (quick) clarification.
On Jun 11, 12:33 am, mdipierro mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu wrote:
This is a false problem.
Flask and web2py are not asynchronous like Tornado. This is not a
problem nor a limitation but a difference in design that determine the
way one program web
No. This the main issue with web2py design. This is the price we pay
for not having imports of models.
On Jun 9, 4:21 pm, Binh btbinht...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to create an orm setup like in ruby on rails with the DAL.
I have a user, post, and tag model.
A user has many posts.
A
There are some things you can do to alleviate the situation.
First, you can name you models so that they execute in the correct order.
A_db.py
B_user.py
C_post.py
E_tag.py
That said, I usually try to keep all related models in the same file.
In your case you might have
B_user.py
C_weblog.py
My approach is to use
db_blablabla1.py
db_blablabla2.py
db_blablabla3.py
where db_blablabla.py defiles all tables that link each other for a
specific purpose. The different files are independent and therefore
the order of execution is not important.
On Jun 9, 9:20 pm, Thadeus Burgess
I'm new to python and web2py, so this might sound crazy but...here
goes.
Noob idea #1
Why not provide an optional exec_models.cfg file? If it doesn't
exist, execute *.py files in alphabetical order found in the models
folder.
This will maintain backward compatibility and give web2py more
They both make a lot of sense. The former would be much easier to
implement and would result in faster code.
What do other people think?
On Jun 9, 11:32 pm, Salvor Hardin salvor.pub...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm new to python and web2py, so this might sound crazy but...here
goes.
Noob idea #1
Why
28 matches
Mail list logo
