We are considering making this even easier. Two non-exclusive proposals on the table are: 1) make conditional models that are executed only for some controllers 2) promote the global objects (request,session,response,T,cache) to be thread local (as in Flask) so that they can be imported by modules and they do not have to be passed around. (Auth,Crud,Service could also be written).
The problem is that we do not know if this will affect performance and it may potentially break something. We'll keep experimenting. Massimo On Nov 13, 1:48 pm, b00m_chef <r...@devshell.org> wrote: > I disagree that web2py would become messy wrt the code-base. The > solution I found was to simply put all my actual logic code in > "modules", then, I simply call up the specific object method in the > controller function linked to the particular html file (view). I > therefore don't keep any code in the "Controller" except object method > calls to the module where the actual code resides. Within the module > file, I can organize my data anyway I want. > > Django is no more organized, and no less organized. > > Most important thing to remember is that when you get to a size that > web2py is no longer suitable, you probably have enough funding to pay > a team of coders to write your app in pylons from scratch. Web2py can > get you to that point though. > > On Nov 13, 9:48 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > > What is large deployment? > > > Is it a large codebase that you must manage for an internal dashbaord, or > > just alot of users/database io that needs to scale out for worldwide access? > > > If its the first case, web2py can get really complicated in dealing with > > lots of models and difficult to manage in an efficient manner. The larger > > your codebase the messier web2py apps will become. In the end, this would > > ultimately be up to the preferences of you and your team and what your > > willing to put up with. > > > In the second case, framework hardly matters at that point. Disqus uses > > django, facebook uses php, reddit uses pylons, myspace uses coldfusion, > > microsoft uses asp, oracle uses java. Its always the database that becomes > > an issue regardless of programming language or web framework. > > > -- > > Thadeus > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:53 AM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > > I agree with Villas. The larger the development the more the database > > > becomes the bottleneck and the framework irrelevant. > > > > Massimo > > > > On Nov 13, 8:35 am, villas <villa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Jason > > > > > I guess you have to define 'large deployment' first of all. Number of > > > > records and size of DB? Number of concurrent users? Large data model > > > > or number of forms etc? Number of servers -- or replication? Global > > > > coverage? > > > > > In principle I don't think there's any reason why Web2py would be > > > > worse than other frameworks. Usually it is much better! As an > > > > example, I think deploying to the Google App Engine should be able to > > > > scale sufficiently for everything but extreme cases :) > > > > > If you specify more about what you wish to achieve this group may be > > > > able to give more specific advice how best to organise your project. > > > > > -D > > > > > On Nov 13, 7:12 am, Jason Brower <encomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I love web2py and it's the only framework i feel i am fully capable to > > > do or learn to do quickly. > > > > > However, I remember see that this framework is intended for small to > > > medium sized deployments. Is this true? What is it that stops us from > > > larger > > > deployment? Should i pickup django because i may need it? > > > > > Regards, > > > > > jb > >
