Dave Warnock wrote:
I don't really understand how it's overkill. A configuration file is
overkill? If so(?), the files map to simple function calls, so you
could do it that way.
For something like small British Churches, I think the concern is more
maintainability than anything. They can easily afford a dedicated
server (virtualized, not an actual box), with more than enough power for
them. They just can't maintain the result. So I'm not sure exactly
what the issue is.
Many can't/won't spend for a "a dedicated server (virtualized, not an
actual box)". We are looking at sites that are one step up from free
hosting without a proper domain name.
Then, at this time, they can't reasonably host TurboGears apps, or
likely most Python apps. Which isn't what you are proposing either...
I want to write web apps in TurboGears that will be used to make cheap
non dynamic hosting appear a little more dynamic without them needing to
host their own applications.
OK... so you either need static publishing (blogger-style), or various
client-side templating options, like Javascript includes, iframes, etc.
These are all outside the realm of deployment...
So for this type of webapp which is going to be free I need to be able
to host as easily as possible on my textdrive account. I don't want a
shared database and I don't want to have to create new
configurations/instances each time a church registers.
Then you need to programmatically instantiate the applications. At
least in Paste Deploy, the configuration files map very closely to
function calls, so you can construct your own database-driven
application dispatcher. You would do this in Python, since you really
need programming to do this kind of dispatching. *Possibly* there could
be a framework for this sort of multi-client install situation; but
there isn't and probably won't/shouldn't be until lots of people are
doing it.
--
Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org
