Python web frameworks

[joe jacob]

There are a lot of web frameworks for python like django, mod_python,
spyce, turbo gears, Zope, Cherrypy etc. Which one is the best in terms
of performance and ease of study.

[Frank Miles]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, joe jacob wrote:

There are a lot of web frameworks for python like django, mod_python,
spyce, turbo gears, Zope, Cherrypy etc. Which one is the best in terms
of performance and ease of study.

Personally I found zope/plone to be very much its own enormously complex world.
Performance was quite sluggish on a less-than-state-of-the-art computer. Part
of my problem was that my particular job didn't really fit with the particular
viewpoint (way of handling data) implicit in these programs. This might not
be the case for you - you'll have to evaluate that for yourself.

In the end I went with Django (hosted by mod_python/apache). Django thankfully
doesn't require that you use their "admin" as the access point for normal users,
though that means it will take more time and thought. It's still comparatively
flexible and straightforward in comparison to zope/plone. There are a few things
that I am not 100% satisifed with, but overall I have found django to be very
adaptible to my particular needs. All this despite the fact that this is a
pretty minor part of my work - I am pretty much a newby at developing for the web.

BTW the book - while still apparently not fully completed - is available for
free on the 'net.

-f

[Jeff]

On Nov 20, 10:00 am, Thomas Wittek <m...@gedankenk onstrukt.dewrot e:

Jeff:

I don't know much about the others. Turbo gears uses Mochikit, which
hasn't had a new stable release in some time. I prefer jQuery myself.

You can use jQuery with TurboGears if you develop custom widgets (I do so).
No problem here.

That's good to know, but I was intending to mean that TurboGears has
built-in support for Mochikit, while Django has no built-in Javascript
or Ajax support.

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

joe jacob a écrit :
(snip)

Thanks everyone for the response. From the posts I understand that
Django and pylons are the best. By searching the net earlier I got the
same information that Django is best among the frameworks so I
downloaded it and I found it very difficult to configure.

???

It's been a couple of years since I last used Django, but I don't
remember any specific complexity wrt/ configuration.

[Joe Riopel]

On Nov 21, 2007 5:42 AM, joe jacob <jo********@gma il.comwrote:

Thanks everyone for the response. From the posts I understand that
Django and pylons are the best. By searching the net earlier I got the
same information that Django is best among the frameworks so I
downloaded it and I found it very difficult to configure. I referred
the djangobook. Is pylons better in terms of performance and ease of
study compared to Django.

I have only used Pylons for the simplest of applications (Not because
I don't think it can handle complex applications, but because I am
trying to learn the framework) and find it very easy to configure.
That said, I think it's definitely worth your time to to either give
Pylons a try, or give Django more time.

This thread has been going for only a few days now, and I wouldn't
expect you'd have very intimate knowledge with any framework.

[BartlebyScrivener]

On Nov 21, 4:42 am, joe jacob <joejaco...@gma il.comwrote:

Django is best among the frameworks so I
downloaded it and I found it very difficult to configure. I referred
the djangobook.

It's not a turnkey type thing like WordPress or Joomla. It's a
webframework. Also watch versions. The book examples work only in .
96. It's easy in the tutorial to stray into docs for .95 or SVN. I
think that's part of the confusion.

rd

[Istvan Albert]

On Nov 21, 12:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <Graham.Dumple. [e-mail]>
wrote:

I would say that that is now debatable. Overall mod_wsgi is probably a
better package in terms of what it has to offer. Only thing against
mod_wsgi at this point is peoples willingness to accept something that
is new in conjunction with Linux distributions and web hosting
companies being slow to adopt new packages.

Yes that is to be expected, many people want someone else to pay the
early adopter's costs. Nonetheless mod_wsgi seems like the right
direction to move the python world.

One confounding factor that may slow its adoption could be the need of
running plain old CGI in an efficient way. I'm not sure how that fits
into the WSGI picture.

i.

[Ian Bicking]

On Nov 20, 7:55 am, "Joe Riopel" <goo...@gmail.c omwrote:

On Nov 20, 2007 8:46 AM, BartlebyScriven er <bscrivene...@g mail.comwrote:

Django comes with its own little server so that you don't have
to set up Apache on your desktop to play with it.

Pylons too, it's good for development but using the bundled web server
is not recommended for production.

It's actually fine to use it for production. There's two servers that
are used commonly with Pylons, the one in Paste and the CherryPy
server (it's a one-line configuration change to switch). The
generally recommended production deployment is using one of these,
with another HTTP server in front proxying requests back. There's
lots of side-benefits to that particular setup, like hosting the
Pylons app alongside static files, PHP, etc. But there's quite a few
people who serve directly from Python (probably more often using the
CherryPy server, though I don't really know the differences in a
production situation).

Anyway, mostly an aside for choosing a framework.

Ian

[SamFeltus]

"""Perhaps we need a pythonic FRONTEND. """

Should have happened years ago.

[Ian Bicking]

On Nov 22, 11:00 am, Istvan Albert <istvan.alb...@ gmail.comwrote:

On Nov 21, 12:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <Graham.Dumple. [e-mail]>
wrote:

I would say that that is now debatable. Overall mod_wsgi is probably a
better package in terms of what it has to offer. Only thing against
mod_wsgi at this point is peoples willingness to accept something that
is new in conjunction with Linux distributions and web hosting
companies being slow to adopt new packages.

Yes that is to be expected, many people want someone else to pay the
early adopter's costs. Nonetheless mod_wsgi seems like the right
direction to move the python world.

One confounding factor that may slow its adoption could be the need of
running plain old CGI in an efficient way. I'm not sure how that fits
into the WSGI picture.

Practically running CGI quickly is hard. All of the modern batch of
frameworks contain too much code to do this; the startup cost of
loading all that code for each request is just too much.

For commodity servers that only support CGI scripts, and periodically
kill long-running requests, I had an idea for making WSGI applications
look like CGI scripts:
http://blog.ianbicking.org/2007/08/0...-isnt-fastcgi/ --
basically using the CGI script as a pipe to the application, with some
process management built in.

Of course, it still would need to be implemented. I suspect it would
be a fairly simple task for someone familiar with C.

This isn't really a big deal for most professional web developers, who
can control their server environment, but lack of this style of
deployment does make it a lot harder for web application users to use
Python applications.

Ian

[TYR]

On Nov 23, 4:22 am, SamFeltus <samfel...@gmai l.comwrote:

"""Perhaps we need a pythonic FRONTEND. """

Should have happened years ago.

Python Internet Environment: PIE.