*Cliff* Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortuantely I need it to work on Windows as well, so I'll probably look for a code-organization based solution.
*Bruce* I would certainly be interested to see what you've done. I've been distilling Bruno's model-less demo<http://movu.ca/demo/article/show/11/model-less-apps-using-data-models-and-modules-in-web2py>down to the essential components that I need, and I came up with some that works like this: *Model:* app = MyApp() # This is based on Bruno's concept of an app that contains all the database connection settings as well as member variables for db, mail, and crud *Modules:* - Base data-model module based on Bruno's basemodel.py that acts as a common data-model interface - All data models inherited from the based data-model. Each defines its own fields, validators, etc... *Controller:* Now in the first line of each of my controllers I just need to declare the database variable. It's not terribly pretty that I have to do that I suppose, but, since I've opted for declaring which models I need and which I don't, I'm going to have declare them *somewhere*. I guess it's sort of like an inverted decorator (below the definition instead of above). from datamodels.user import UserModel from datamodels.post import PostModel from datamodels.comment import CommentModel def user(): db = app.db([UserModel, PostModel, CommentModel]) # Connect to the database and define the models specified # Do whatever processing is required for this controller *Discussion:* * * This solution could be nice for a couple of reasons: 1) MyApp holds the instance of the database so I it can be smart about not defining tables that have already been defined (because programmers make mistakes) 2) I could conditionally declare models based on request conditions and ramp up which tables are declared as I need them. (Maybe that'll help for caching with logged-in users -- don't know yet) 3) Models are separate. Combined with gluino it means I could possibly reuse the code to make a desktop app with PySide, or as the back-end for an iOS or Android app. This solution isn't so nice because: 1) It's fairly verbose. *Future:* * * If I like this solution I could make it a little more clear with a closure that has a better name. *Model: * app = MyApp() requires = app.requires() *Controller:* from datamodels.user import UserModel from datamodels.post import PostModel from datamodels.comment import CommentModel def user(): requires([UserModel, PostModel, CommentModel]) Anyway... that's what I've done so far. Can't wait to see yours! On Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:52:21 PM UTC+1, Bruce Wade wrote: > > Yes you can soft link however when you get to the point of multiple > servers and upgrading code on each it is a pain. > > The site I`m working in is very large. I am now rewriting the code with a > new technique in modules and using conditional if statements in side each > module so you have 100% control of what loads when and where. > > I should have the new code live soon and will follow up if there was a > huge improvement or not. Locally I have seen a huge improvement on one page > the loading time went from 0.128 to 0.045 seconds and a functioin call drop > from 85845 to 31380 calls and this example is from a page with a single > query to a single record in the db. You can imagine the improvement on a > complicated page. > On May 27, 2012 8:56 AM, "Cliff Kachinske" <cjk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, you can soft link individual files within the file system. You can >> even rename the target files so the tables load in the right order. >> >> It will work on Linux and OS-X and should work on all unix flavors. >> >> On Friday, May 25, 2012 3:25:37 PM UTC-4, David McKeone wrote: >>> >>> Cliff, >>> >>> Certainly an interesting idea. I'm assuming that you mean soft-linking >>> the file system? Would that work on Windows (I have to be able to deploy to >>> Windows and Mac)? >>> >>> -David >>> >>> On Friday, May 25, 2012 8:05:06 PM UTC+1, Cliff Kachinske wrote: >>>> >>>> Maybe you could soft link the model files. >>>> >>>> For controller foo you would have a file models/foo/foo.py >>>> >>>> If controller bar needs needs data from table foo, you would create a >>>> soft link in you models/bar directory to models/foo/foo.py. >>>> >>>> Note if you link it in as foo.py, it will run after bar.py, so you >>>> would want to name the link according to the necessary sequence. >>>> >>>> Don't know what this would do for migrations on the production box, >>>> though. >>>> >>>> On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:49:51 AM UTC-4, David McKeone wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Massimo, >>>>> >>>>> "You probably do not need 100 models defined for each request." >>>>> and "Make sure you turn migrations off and bytecode compile your apps." >>>>> >>>>> No, I certainly don't need all 100 at all times. That was really just >>>>> a test to see where the boundaries were going to be. It likely wasn't >>>>> the >>>>> optimal configuration (migrations were off, wasn't byte-compiled), but it >>>>> did highlight that as the app grows that's an area I have to watch for >>>>> and >>>>> one that will affect the user experience. Once I saw that a boundary >>>>> existed I found Bruno's model-less design and that brought things back to >>>>> great performance levels. So I think that design will fit my needs >>>>> performance wise. >>>>> >>>>> I'll investigate the conditional model system, but my understanding of >>>>> that was that you would be restricted to specific controllers. As in, I >>>>> can't use a single table (model) across multiple controllers. Would that >>>>> be >>>>> true? >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>> >>> On Friday, May 25, 2012 8:05:06 PM UTC+1, Cliff Kachinske wrote: >>>> >>>> Maybe you could soft link the model files. >>>> >>>> For controller foo you would have a file models/foo/foo.py >>>> >>>> If controller bar needs needs data from table foo, you would create a >>>> soft link in you models/bar directory to models/foo/foo.py. >>>> >>>> Note if you link it in as foo.py, it will run after bar.py, so you >>>> would want to name the link according to the necessary sequence. >>>> >>>> Don't know what this would do for migrations on the production box, >>>> though. >>>> >>>> On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:49:51 AM UTC-4, David McKeone wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Massimo, >>>>> >>>>> "You probably do not need 100 models defined for each request." >>>>> and "Make sure you turn migrations off and bytecode compile your apps." >>>>> >>>>> No, I certainly don't need all 100 at all times. That was really just >>>>> a test to see where the boundaries were going to be. It likely wasn't >>>>> the >>>>> optimal configuration (migrations were off, wasn't byte-compiled), but it >>>>> did highlight that as the app grows that's an area I have to watch for >>>>> and >>>>> one that will affect the user experience. Once I saw that a boundary >>>>> existed I found Bruno's model-less design and that brought things back to >>>>> great performance levels. So I think that design will fit my needs >>>>> performance wise. >>>>> >>>>> I'll investigate the conditional model system, but my understanding of >>>>> that was that you would be restricted to specific controllers. As in, I >>>>> can't use a single table (model) across multiple controllers. Would that >>>>> be >>>>> true? >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>
