web2py 1.95 and the jython version mentioned here:
http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13?search=jython
worked.

For some time we have put effort in supporting Jython and web2py "kind of 
worked" with it. But "kind of" was not good enough and I gave up supporting 
it.

The problem is not Jython. The problem is that it is not really compatible 
with Python mostly because of the way it handles regular expressions. 
CPython has its own implementation for regular expressions. Jython uses the 
SUN/Java implementation and they do not behave the same. The latter have a 
known bug that causes run-away problems and SUN/Oracle refused to fix it to 
keep backward compatibility.
Web2py uses regexes a lot and this was a problem.

We had other problems like Jython would report "function takes exactly 2 
arguments (1 given)" while the function does indeed take one argument.

We gave up supporting Jython because we would not be making a service to 
web2py users to make them think they could use Jython for a production 
setup.

Jython has improved. If you fix bugs related to Jython support we will take 
them Yet supporting it is not a priority.

Massimo


On Monday, 28 May 2012 18:46:56 UTC-5, Laurence wrote:
>
> *Can anyone give me the version numbers of a web2py and Jython 
> combination that work?*
>
> I've read that web2py works out of the box with Jython for about the past 
> three years, so obviously somebody has made this work (maybe it's just a 
> matter of luck depending on the current state of Jython and web2py when one 
> tries it).
>
> As of 5/28/2012 I just tried the latest and greatest stable versions of 
> web2py and Jython and they don't seem to get along to say the least.
>
> I verified my standalone version of Jython has no problem with SQLite or 
> zxJDBC, so I was really hoping web2py would really work.
>
> According to google code all Jython tickets are closed for web2py.  My 
> experience is similar to this post from about a year ago:
>
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web2py/64286 
>
> Thanks,
>
> Laurence
>

Reply via email to