Doesn't work with code completion, and will be a maintenance nightmare! I spent weeks trying different code organisation patterns with web2py including what you mentioned, everything I attempted just caused more problems and made the code less maintainable.
Like I keep saying, it all comes down to programmers preference. I started programming with Java, therefore I like object oriented programming that Flask+SQLAlchemy uses. -- Thadeus On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:23 AM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > Nothing prevents you in web2py to create a > > modules/models/mymodel.py > > then > > import applications.yourapp/modules/models.mymodel.py > > and then call a function in there that defines the tables you need. > And you can have more than one mymodel. > > This anyway will be easy if we add support for lazy tables and thread > local globals. > > > On Nov 14, 10:36 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > >>>A good advise, but, not always possible. I am considering to migrate > an > > > > App in the range of 70-100 tables to web2py and there are tables that are > > like pillars, belong to several groups (customers, employees, > projects,...) > > How we could manage this >>>shared tables? > > > > >>>Also sometimes its hard to determine an order for the tables to avoid > > > > referencing a "still undefined" table. > > > > >>>There is another type of large applications, enterprise level with > > > > hundreds or thousands of tables. The approach of multiples apps sharing > same > > database is useful, but how could we solve the division of tables in > apps, > > is it better to define the >>>model in one place and "import" the > required > > tables on the apps? > > > > This is why I prefer Flask + SQLAlchemy. > > > > -- > > Thadeus > > > > 2010/11/14 José Ignacio Hurtado <jose.i.hurt...@gmail.com> > > > > > A good advise, but, not always possible. I am considering to migrate an > App > > > in the range of 70-100 tables to web2py and there are tables that are > like > > > pillars, belong to several groups (customers, employees, projects,...) > How > > > we could manage this shared tables? > > > > > Also sometimes its hard to determine an order for the tables to avoid > > > referencing a "still undefined" table. > > > > > There is another type of large applications, enterprise level with > hundreds > > > or thousands of tables. The approach of multiples apps sharing same > database > > > is useful, but how could we solve the division of tables in apps, is it > > > better to define the model in one place and "import" the required > tables on > > > the apps? > > > > > Jose. > > > > > 2010/11/14 mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> > > > > > I agree that there are things we can improve in web2py. > > > > >> Yet, if a complex application have many pieces that are untangled, the > > >> import mechanism does not necessarily help you. The solution is trying > > >> to design components that are relatively independent. If you can do > > >> this, web2py does not bet in the way. For example, you have 100 tables > > >> functionally grouped in ~10 and all they need to share is > > >> authentication, you may want to separate the functions in 10 different > > >> web2py applications (all sharing one database, each defining only the > > >> tables it needs, and sharing one session cookie). This modular design > > >> solves lots of problems. > > > > >> I have heard of people who have developed complex applications in > > >> Django (which uses the import you suggest) and run into problems > > >> because they were using more ram than needed since all modules were > > >> always imported. In web2py controllers are executed only when called > > >> and if you make many small controllers you save lots of memory. > > >> Controllers than then import the modules they need and only those. > > > > >> Massimo > > > > >> On Nov 13, 7:28 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > >> > The biggest contributing factor is that web2py is executed and not > > >> import. > > >> > The coder must always be sure to align objects and database in the > > >> correct > > >> > order, including any auxiliary functions, class mappings, queries. > > >> He/she > > >> > has to worry about the "order" of everything. Sometimes you can't > have > > >> such > > >> > order for complex systems. I think an import based system solves > this in > > >> > that the import statements declare the order instead of the physical > > >> > location of the code doing that. > > > > >> > -- > > >> > Thadeus > > > > >> > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jason Brower <encomp...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > These are encouraging. > > >> > > In large deployment I mean it in the most external sense of it. > > >> Facebook > > >> > > is big, myspace is big, those kinds of object were what I was > aiming > > >> for. > > >> > > And with Massimo's comment about the database size. I think your > > >> right, the > > >> > > framework does become less relavent. In what ways in a large > codebase > > >> > > making web2py code messier and is there a solution to it in > another > > >> > > framework? > > >> > > BR, > > >> > > J > > > > >> > > On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:48 -0600, Thadeus Burgess 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 > > > > > -- > > > Un saludo, > > > > > José Ignacio Hurtado López > > > > >
