467,861 Members | 1,432 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 467,861 developers. It's quick & easy.

Using Python for my web site

Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP. Any help or tips are appreciated.

-Adam

Jul 31 '06 #1
  • viewed: 2142
Share:
48 Replies
northband wrote:
Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP. Any help or tips are appreciated.

-Adam

you should try http://www.ikaaro.org/itools it is a python library and
has all you need, although it is still in alpha state, it is running
some heavy applications such as http://destinationsflybe.com as an example.

for the mysql you can use the csv module.

for now it has not been ported on window$, try gentoo or freebsd

--
Norman Khine
Jul 31 '06 #2
Thanks I will look into it.

-Adam

Norman Khine wrote:
northband wrote:
Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP. Any help or tips are appreciated.

-Adam
you should try http://www.ikaaro.org/itools it is a python library and
has all you need, although it is still in alpha state, it is running
some heavy applications such as http://destinationsflybe.com as an example.

for the mysql you can use the csv module.

for now it has not been ported on window$, try gentoo or freebsd

--
Norman Khine
Jul 31 '06 #3
northband wrote:
Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD
I may be a bit biased, but I would not run a web server under Windows...
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server
Have you considered Postgresql instead ?
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP.
That's a possible solution.
Any help or tips are appreciated.
You may eventually be interested in Django (full stack MVC web
framework, runs on mod_apache, supports both MySQL and Postgresql)

http://www.djangoproject.com/

or Myghty (Python's extended port of Perl::Mason, runs on mod_apache,
not tied to any RDBMS) + eventually SQLAlchemy (orm)
http://www.myghty.org/
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/

Now I can't tell if either one or the other beats PSP when it comes to
raw perfs...

My 2 cents
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'o****@xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"
Jul 31 '06 #4
Thanks for the info. Reason why we are interested in PSP is because we
think our developers would be able to quickly adapt to the migration,
they are familiar with php and asp.

I agree on the windows webserver, we are looking into using FreeBSD
instead.

What would postgre's advantage over MySQL be?

I will look into Django.

Thanks for your .2

-Adam
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
northband wrot
Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD

I may be a bit biased, but I would not run a web server under Windows...
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server

Have you considered Postgresql instead ?
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP.

That's a possible solution.
Any help or tips are appreciated.

You may eventually be interested in Django (full stack MVC web
framework, runs on mod_apache, supports both MySQL and Postgresql)

http://www.djangoproject.com/

or Myghty (Python's extended port of Perl::Mason, runs on mod_apache,
not tied to any RDBMS) + eventually SQLAlchemy (orm)
http://www.myghty.org/
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/

Now I can't tell if either one or the other beats PSP when it comes to
raw perfs...

My 2 cents
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'o****@xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"
Jul 31 '06 #5
northband wrote:
Thanks for the info. Reason why we are interested in PSP is because we
think our developers would be able to quickly adapt to the migration,
they are familiar with php and asp.
Yes, I guessed it had do to with something like this. OTOH, the
ServerPage model can quickly lead to a disgusting and barely
maintainable mess of application logic and presentation, while the MVC
approach helps designing and writing much more cleaner code (IMHE). As a
matter of fact, lots of PHP apps turns into some more or less well
backed reimplementation of the MVC model.
I agree on the windows webserver, we are looking into using FreeBSD
instead.

What would postgre's advantage over MySQL be?
PostgreSQL is a mature, rock-solid, full-blown RDBMS. While not as
laughable as it used to be until very recently, MySQL is still barely a
DBMS at all - and our experiences with it is that it breaks down way too
easily and is a king-size PITA to maintain and upgrade. In fact, the
real question IMHO is: what would MySQL advantage over PostgreSQL be ?-)
I will look into Django.
I can't tell if it'll meets your needs, but I really thinks it's worth
giving it a try.

--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'o****@xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"
Jul 31 '06 #6
On 2006-07-31 15:00:15, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
In fact, the real question IMHO is: what would MySQL advantage over
PostgreSQL be ?-)
A few years ago I did some research, and the result was that while
PostgreSQL was claimed to have more features and a better design, the
reports of database corruption seemed to have been more frequent than with
MySQL. The usual reason given was that MySQL was more mature.

I assume you don't agree... :)

Gerhard

Jul 31 '06 #7
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 17:12 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-07-31 15:00:15, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
In fact, the real question IMHO is: what would MySQL advantage over
PostgreSQL be ?-)

A few years ago I did some research, and the result was that while
PostgreSQL was claimed to have more features and a better design, the
reports of database corruption seemed to have been more frequent than with
MySQL. The usual reason given was that MySQL was more mature.

I assume you don't agree... :)
I certainly don't. MySQL provides two different ways to corrupt your
data: actual database corruption *and* data integrity corruption. You
can escape the second by using InnoDB rather than MyISAM tables, but
that increases your chances of the first (InnoDB not being as "mature"
as either MyISAM or PostgreSQL).

Also, saying "a few years ago I did some research" in software terms is
pretty much equivalent to saying "I don't know".

Regards,
Cliff

--

Jul 31 '06 #8
On 2006-07-31 17:28:00, Cliff Wells wrote:
>I assume you don't agree... :)

I certainly don't. [...]
Also, saying "a few years ago I did some research" in software terms is
pretty much equivalent to saying "I don't know".
Exactly. So what's your point with this comment?

I stated what was my impression at the time, with the hope that others
might want to comment. Thanks for the comment.

OTOH, anybody who says "I know" regarding a comparison in reliability
between databases must have pretty good data to back that up. Few have.
Most are in the "I don't know, but my impression is that ..." group.

Gerhard

Jul 31 '06 #9
So seems the best approach would be a MVC model rather than server
scripting? Currently our site is built with a closed source hypertext
preprocessor much like PHP. So it would be easier for us to script
another site, but if we would gain performance via a MVC model, then
that's what we need.

I am not very familiar with developing via MVC, any good tutorials out
there or good places to start?

-Adam

Jul 31 '06 #10
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 17:58 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-07-31 17:28:00, Cliff Wells wrote:
I assume you don't agree... :)
I certainly don't. [...]
Also, saying "a few years ago I did some research" in software terms is
pretty much equivalent to saying "I don't know".

Exactly. So what's your point with this comment?
My point is to stop FUD right at that comment. I don't doubt your
research from "a few years ago", but ancient research is entirely
irrelevant for making a decision *today*.

However, had I let it pass, then someone else might not make that
distinction and come away with the impression that your research was
somehow still relevant and that PostgreSQL is less reliable than MySQL.
I stated what was my impression at the time, with the hope that others
might want to comment. Thanks for the comment.
You're welcome.
OTOH, anybody who says "I know" regarding a comparison in reliability
between databases must have pretty good data to back that up. Few have.
Most are in the "I don't know, but my impression is that ..." group.
Absolutely. I can only give you anecdotal evidence myself. Further, if
someone were to present a whitepaper of some sort demonstrating that one
is superior with regard to reliability or performance, I'd probably be
highly suspect of their motives.

Regardless, since my job as a hoster requires that I assist customers
with database issues, I have hands-on experience with dozens of
instances of each and my *very recent* experience tells me that MySQL is
far more prone to database corruption than PostgreSQL. In the past 6
months, I've repaired or restored at least 4 MySQL databases (and for no
apparent reason, to boot), but I've had to do the same for exactly zero
PostgreSQL installs since I started hosting over 3 years ago. And just
to be clear, the number of PostgreSQL installs far exceeds the number of
MySQL installs. Were there equal numbers of each I'd expect even more
MySQL problems.

Regards,
Cliff

--

Jul 31 '06 #11
Just spoke with my department and looks like we still want to go with a
server scripting method. Although MVC may be better fit, for the sake
of the learning curve, we want to use a PSP style method.

So as of now we are looking at using FreeBSD, MySQL, and some form of
Python that will allow us to achieve great performance serving
30million page loads / month.

-Adam

Jul 31 '06 #12
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 14:40 -0700, northband wrote:
Just spoke with my department and looks like we still want to go with a
server scripting method. Although MVC may be better fit, for the sake
of the learning curve, we want to use a PSP style method.
I'm with the others who suggest using an MVC framework. The learning
curve for Django, TurboGears, Pylons, et al, is ridiculously short, and
the maintainability of the resulting code is infinitely superior.

Why don't you take a look at the 20 minute wiki screencast that
TurboGears has and make a decision then. Although the screencast is
specifically about TurboGears, a similar screencast could be made for
almost any of the other MVC-style frameworks:

http://files.turbogears.org/video/20MinuteWiki2nd.mov
http://www.turbogears.org/preview/do...i20/index.html

Developing in a PHP/ASP embedded style is an anachronism these days and
for good reason. Spend a couple days learning a modern framework. The
time will be well-spent and quickly made up in shortened development
time and code maintainablility.
So as of now we are looking at using FreeBSD, MySQL, and some form of
Python that will allow us to achieve great performance serving
30million page loads / month.
If I were you, I'd cease worrying about the performance of the framework
itself and research caching proxies and load balancing solutions
instead. The payoff in performance will be much higher and you won't
have to make architectural compromises.

Regards,
Cliff

--

Jul 31 '06 #13
Makes sense, I will follow your advice. Sounds like more time invest
upfront will equal time saved over the long run. I am defitely
interested in proxy caching and load balancing. Which do you
recommend? I have used #Pound while working for a university.

-Adam
Cliff Wells wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 14:40 -0700, northband wrote:
Just spoke with my department and looks like we still want to go with a
server scripting method. Although MVC may be better fit, for the sake
of the learning curve, we want to use a PSP style method.

I'm with the others who suggest using an MVC framework. The learning
curve for Django, TurboGears, Pylons, et al, is ridiculously short, and
the maintainability of the resulting code is infinitely superior.

Why don't you take a look at the 20 minute wiki screencast that
TurboGears has and make a decision then. Although the screencast is
specifically about TurboGears, a similar screencast could be made for
almost any of the other MVC-style frameworks:

http://files.turbogears.org/video/20MinuteWiki2nd.mov
http://www.turbogears.org/preview/do...i20/index.html

Developing in a PHP/ASP embedded style is an anachronism these days and
for good reason. Spend a couple days learning a modern framework. The
time will be well-spent and quickly made up in shortened development
time and code maintainablility.
So as of now we are looking at using FreeBSD, MySQL, and some form of
Python that will allow us to achieve great performance serving
30million page loads / month.

If I were you, I'd cease worrying about the performance of the framework
itself and research caching proxies and load balancing solutions
instead. The payoff in performance will be much higher and you won't
have to make architectural compromises.

Regards,
Cliff

--
Jul 31 '06 #14
Gerhard Fiedler a écrit :
On 2006-07-31 15:00:15, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>>In fact, the real question IMHO is: what would MySQL advantage over
PostgreSQL be ?-)


A few years ago I did some research, and the result was that while
PostgreSQL was claimed to have more features and a better design, the
reports of database corruption seemed to have been more frequent than with
MySQL. The usual reason given was that MySQL was more mature.

I assume you don't agree... :)
I obviously don't, based on experience with both.

Jul 31 '06 #15
northband schrieb:
So seems the best approach would be a MVC model rather than server
scripting? Currently our site is built with a closed source hypertext
preprocessor much like PHP. So it would be easier for us to script
another site, but if we would gain performance via a MVC model, then
that's what we need.
MVC and server side scripting are two totally orthogonal things - you
don't do the one and ditch the other as a consequence of that.

MVC is a pattern of software design. It won't affect the performance
itself, at least not the system performance. It most probably will boost
your developing performance, as following the clear separation of data
(model), application logic (controller) and view-logic (view) will help
maintaining the codebase and make changes easier.

And MVC doesn't depend on the language used - you can even do that in
PHP, albeit it makes things much more dependent on discipline.

Diez
Jul 31 '06 #16
northband a écrit :
So seems the best approach would be a MVC model rather than server
scripting?
This is still "server-scripting" - at least since on the server-side and
is done with something frequently labelled as a "script language" !-)
Currently our site is built with a closed source hypertext
preprocessor much like PHP. So it would be easier for us to script
another site,
Depends on how your app is written - one can do MVC with PHP too.
but if we would gain performance via a MVC model,
This won't change anything to performances. What you can gain is a
better design, well-decoupled code, hence far less maintenance problems.
>
I am not very familiar with developing via MVC, any good tutorials out
there or good places to start?
Do the Django tutorial. They actually name things differently (ie they
call controllers views and views templates), which can be a bit
misleading, but that's really MVC.

Jul 31 '06 #17
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:06 -0700, northband wrote:
Makes sense, I will follow your advice. Sounds like more time invest
upfront will equal time saved over the long run. I am defitely
interested in proxy caching and load balancing. Which do you
recommend? I have used #Pound while working for a university.
I currently use Pound, mostly for proxying to virtual hosts on my shared
hosting systems, but for heavy page hits and dynamic content, Squid is
probably of more interest since Pound doesn't do caching.

Regards,
Cliff
Jul 31 '06 #18
northband a écrit :
Just spoke with my department and looks like we still want to go with a
server scripting method. Although MVC may be better fit, for the sake
of the learning curve, we want to use a PSP style method.
I really don't think the learning curve will be a problem. We learned
Django while using it for an app, and the app was completed and
delivered within a week (total 8 man/day). Granted, it was a dead simple
app, but it would have take as much time doing it in PHP. The last one
we did was not trivial, and was ready to deliver in 2 weeks - one week
before schedule. This very first release is still running, and we didn't
have a single bug report. Not to say that Django is a silver-bullet, but
it's actually the best tool we found for sql-based web apps so far.
So as of now we are looking at using FreeBSD, MySQL, and some form of
Python that will allow us to achieve great performance serving
30million page loads / month.
FWIW, when it comes to web apps, and given a reasonnably well
designe/implemented app, "performance" is more a matter of
tuning/hardware/etc than anything else.

Jul 31 '06 #19
On 2006-07-31 18:23:17, Cliff Wells wrote:
My point is to stop FUD right at that comment. I don't doubt your
research from "a few years ago", but ancient research is entirely
irrelevant for making a decision *today*.
That's exactly the reason why I added this information. It might not be for
you, but it is interesting for me (and might be for someone else) to see
that I get a different feedback now than I got a few years ago. It tells
something about the dynamic of the process that the mere status of today
doesn't tell.

Besides, "claimed to have" and "seemed to have" are not really FUD inducing
terms :)

Anyway, I appreciate you sharing your experience (which in that area
certainly is more than mine).

Gerhard

Aug 1 '06 #20
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 21:57 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-07-31 18:23:17, Cliff Wells wrote:
My point is to stop FUD right at that comment. I don't doubt your
research from "a few years ago", but ancient research is entirely
irrelevant for making a decision *today*.

That's exactly the reason why I added this information. It might not be for
you, but it is interesting for me (and might be for someone else) to see
that I get a different feedback now than I got a few years ago. It tells
something about the dynamic of the process that the mere status of today
doesn't tell.
Well, perhaps I misunderstood your intent. Sorry if I was short.
Besides, "claimed to have" and "seemed to have" are not really FUD inducing
terms :)
Taken in a vacuum, they can certainly add to an overall negative
impression. PostgreSQL, in the past, has certainly had some hurdles
that made it a suboptimal choice for many people: performance and
difficulty in installation and management, among other things (I've
personally not had stability issues), lack of a native Win32 version,
etc, have made it the runner up in deployment to MySQL.
Today, that's all changed. PostgreSQL is comparable in performance to
MySQL (although I expect each outperforms the other in certain areas),
*easier* to install and maintain than MySQL, and its stability is
outstanding. Release 8 also saw a native Windows version. For many
reasons, MySQL seems to be on the reverse track, sacrificing
performance, stability and ease of use in an attempt to catch up to
PostgreSQL in features.
Nevertheless, there remains rumors and myths that stem from those old
days that cause many people to fear deploying PostgreSQL. This is part
of the reason I'm always quick to jump on statements such as yours. I
feel it's a disservice to the community to let those myths continue and
perhaps dissuade others from discovering what is today *the* premier
FOSS relational database.
Anyway, I appreciate you sharing your experience (which in that area
certainly is more than mine).
I'm glad I was able to add to the pool of knowledge (or at least the mud
puddle of anecdote).

Cliff

--

Aug 1 '06 #21
I don't have experience with Django or any other python framework, but
I have used bare-bones mod_python and it rocks.
I wouldn't use PSP though...
It is not very polished, and they way it handles the "indentation
problem" in python is a little bit confussing.

IMHO the best way of using mod_python is with its publisher handler.
It let's you code your applications in a MVC (model view controller)
style.
This way you can cleanly separate presentation and logic, making your
code more concise, clear and mantainable.

With publisher, every function defined in your script represents a web
page in your site, and the html code can be moved to a template, that
could be PSP itself or Cheetah, for example (Cheetah is very good).

A very simple example:

#mysite.py

def index(req):
req.content_type = 'text/html'
req.write("""
<form action = mysite.py/printMyName method = post>
<input type = text name = myname>
<input type = submit>
""")

def printMyName(req, myname):
req.content_type = 'text/html'
req.write(myname)

# end of mysite.py

In this script, the function "index" is executed by default when you go
to http://yourserver/mysite.py, and it displays a text box and a submit
button.
(The first line indicates that the output will be in html format, and
"req.write" is equivalent to "print".)

If you enter your name and hit the submit button, your name is passed
to the "printMyName" function and printed in your browser's screen.

This way, both functions can be viewed like two separate pages within
your site.
So, with only one script, you can write a whole site if you want.

For more complex pages where html is used, you can place this
presentation code in templates, and then import them into your main
script.
Or else, you could simple use "req.write" to print your html directly
(as I did in "index").
Hope this helps...

Luis



northband wrote:
Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP. Any help or tips are appreciated.

-Adam
Aug 1 '06 #22
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 22:25 -0700, Luis M. González wrote:
I don't have experience with Django or any other python framework, but
I have used bare-bones mod_python and it rocks.
I wouldn't use PSP though...
It is not very polished, and they way it handles the "indentation
problem" in python is a little bit confussing.

IMHO the best way of using mod_python is with its publisher handler.
It let's you code your applications in a MVC (model view controller)
style.
While I agree (or at least consider the point moot) that this is
possibly the best way to use plain mod_python, I'd disagree that it's a
good way to develop modern web applications in Python. By the time
you've decided on every bit of framework to use, and made all the little
decisions that go into turning a fresh, clean spot on your hard drive
into an application, what you've done is reinvent TurboGears rather than
develop your application. Worse, you've probably reinvented it poorly.
I've done so many times and am well aware of what a time-waster it is.

You say that you haven't tried Django or any other Python framework.
Perhaps you should. You seem to have at least the start of the right
idea about web application organization, so I think you'd be pleasantly
surprised with what you'll find already done for you by the major Python
frameworks and how much time you'll stop wasting on code that isn't part
of your application.

Regards,
Cliff

Aug 1 '06 #23

northband wrote:
Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have
a few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD
2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server
4. Traffic, 30 million page loads/month

I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP. Any help or tips are appreciated.
So if I'm reading this correctly: you have a system that's
working, and the main purpose of the re-write is faster page
responses to users. Do I have that right?

Have you determined where the time is spent? For some web apps,
speed is all about the database, and if that's true of your system
then changing scripting language isn't going to provide the
performance boost you seek.

Another interesting question is how response time changes with
increasing load. Of course with the real website, those 30 million
page loads per month are not uniformly distributed. What is your
peak rate? Is rush-hour speed mostly what motivates the project?
--
--Bryan

Aug 1 '06 #24
br***********************@yahoo.com wrote:
northband wrote:
[Specifications]
I am trying to have the fastest page loads, averaging 100 items per
result page. I have read about using Apache's mod_python so I could
use PSP. Any help or tips are appreciated.

So if I'm reading this correctly: you have a system that's
working, and the main purpose of the re-write is faster page
responses to users. Do I have that right?
Performance is clearly important, but later on the questioner says...

QCurrently our site is built with a closed source hypertext
Qpreprocessor much like PHP.

That sounds like a good enough reason for migration, depending on how
unportable, unsustainable or unmaintainable the technology platform has
proven itself to be. Still, at least the questioner isn't seeking
performance by wanting to rewrite everything in C++...

Paul

Aug 1 '06 #25
Awesome response, thanks. I am definitely interested in the MVC and am
looking into it now.

Yes, we are migrating to Python mainly because we want unicode support,
more stability, and faster performance than what we are getting now.
We were going to move to php but seem python is the better choice, plus
php 5.0 still doesn't support unicode.

-Adam O

Aug 1 '06 #26

Cliff Wells wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 22:25 -0700, Luis M. González wrote:
I don't have experience with Django or any other python framework, but
I have used bare-bones mod_python and it rocks.
I wouldn't use PSP though...
It is not very polished, and they way it handles the "indentation
problem" in python is a little bit confussing.

IMHO the best way of using mod_python is with its publisher handler.
It let's you code your applications in a MVC (model view controller)
style.

While I agree (or at least consider the point moot) that this is
possibly the best way to use plain mod_python, I'd disagree that it's a
good way to develop modern web applications in Python. By the time
you've decided on every bit of framework to use, and made all the little
decisions that go into turning a fresh, clean spot on your hard drive
into an application, what you've done is reinvent TurboGears rather than
develop your application. Worse, you've probably reinvented it poorly.
I've done so many times and am well aware of what a time-waster it is.

You say that you haven't tried Django or any other Python framework.
Perhaps you should. You seem to have at least the start of the right
idea about web application organization, so I think you'd be pleasantly
surprised with what you'll find already done for you by the major Python
frameworks and how much time you'll stop wasting on code that isn't part
of your application.

Regards,
Cliff
Well... yes, you're right.
I guess that the reason for not having used a framework already is
laziness...
I have experience with Karrigell, which rocks too, but it lacks some
deployment options (no mod_python, no fastcgi, etc).

And as far as I could see in the Django docs, I should learn many new
things to do exactly the same, such as yet another templating language
or how to map urls with regular expressions (I still couldn't wrap my
head around regex... I find them very boring to learn...). But you are
absolutely right. I should definetely try Django sometime.
I guess I'll do it when I have a real need to do some serious web
stuff.

As for TurboGears, I'm not very impressed...
This is a pile of different components picked by someone according to
his liking, very well glued together. Althouh its quality may be good,
why should I stick with a number of components chosen according the
criteria of some other guy?
For example, why kid instead of Cheetah? Why CherryPy?
Really, it isn't that hard to install cheetah and, if you want an
object relational mapper, sqlobject. Once you have them, using raw
mod_python is just a pleasure.
I feel I'm in front of a white clean canvas and I just start coding.
I like the flexibility of being able to choose each part of "my own
framework".
I even created a small script that does the automatic crud stuff for me
(not as polished as Django for sure, but it works like a charm).

Anyway, there's still an issue with using these frameworks:
Availability. It's very hard, if not impossible, to find a decent web
host at an affordable price. Although I guess many of those who use
Django, for example, run their own host.
Being able to use raw mod_python gives you an advantage here.

Luis

Aug 1 '06 #27
On 2006-08-01 04:11:18, Cliff Wells wrote:
You say that you haven't tried Django or any other Python framework.
Perhaps you should. You seem to have at least the start of the right
idea about web application organization, so I think you'd be pleasantly
surprised with what you'll find already done for you by the major Python
frameworks and how much time you'll stop wasting on code that isn't part
of your application.
I've checked it out quickly, and it seems that it is not possible to
install e.g. TurboGears on a typical shared host -- as a normal user. You
seem to run a shared hosts farm (IIRC). What's your point of view of
hosting TurboGears or Django on a shared host? Is that (reasonably)
possible?

Thanks,
Gerhard

Aug 1 '06 #28
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 10:41 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-08-01 04:11:18, Cliff Wells wrote:
You say that you haven't tried Django or any other Python framework.
Perhaps you should. You seem to have at least the start of the right
idea about web application organization, so I think you'd be pleasantly
surprised with what you'll find already done for you by the major Python
frameworks and how much time you'll stop wasting on code that isn't part
of your application.

I've checked it out quickly, and it seems that it is not possible to
install e.g. TurboGears on a typical shared host -- as a normal user. You
seem to run a shared hosts farm (IIRC). What's your point of view of
hosting TurboGears or Django on a shared host? Is that (reasonably)
possible?
There's quite a few actually:

http://www.turbogears.org/preview/do...t/hosting.html

That's just a few picks Kevin made, there are many more. As I
understand it textdrive also supports TG.

For myself, I handle user-installation of TurboGears pretty much like I
do all user-installed Python packages: using setuptools. Any user who
uses easy_install or 'python setup.py install' gets their packages
automatically installed into a subdirectory of their home directory and
that takes precedence over the system installed packages. Works like a
charm.

Regards,
Cliff

--

Aug 1 '06 #29
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 06:38 -0700, Luis M. González wrote:
Well... yes, you're right.
I guess that the reason for not having used a framework already is
laziness...
Trust me, I'm quite familiar with the laziness problem =)
I have experience with Karrigell, which rocks too, but it lacks some
deployment options (no mod_python, no fastcgi, etc).

And as far as I could see in the Django docs, I should learn many new
things to do exactly the same, such as yet another templating language
or how to map urls with regular expressions (I still couldn't wrap my
head around regex... I find them very boring to learn...). But you are
absolutely right. I should definetely try Django sometime.
I guess I'll do it when I have a real need to do some serious web
stuff.

As for TurboGears, I'm not very impressed...
This is a pile of different components picked by someone according to
his liking, very well glued together. Althouh its quality may be good,
why should I stick with a number of components chosen according the
criteria of some other guy?
For example, why kid instead of Cheetah? Why CherryPy?
Really, it isn't that hard to install cheetah and, if you want an
object relational mapper, sqlobject. Once you have them, using raw
mod_python is just a pleasure.
Agreed. But on the other hand, it isn't always about having "the best"
of each (why didn't they use Twisted rather than CherryPy would be *my*
question), but rather having a complete development stack that's
pre-integrated and is *good enough*. And mind you, the integration work
is quite substantial. Also, TurboGears has definitely proven the "a
rising tide lifts all boats" maxim, TurboGears has marketing and
community and all the projects that comprise TurboGears have benefited
from it.

Ultimately a framework is about helping you get *your* job done. If
your job is assembling frameworks or evaluating which ORM is best, then
that's no help ;-) But I suspect those people are in the minority and
most people just want to get their sites done without trying to figure
out which is "best" and then trying to figure out how to integrate that
with other components.

Also, TurboGears supports template plugins (I wrote one to support
Nevow's Stan, and there is a Cheetah plugin as well), and work is being
done to support alternate ORMs (SQLAlchemy is working now, although not
all the TG addons support it yet). The goal is to at least offer people
the opportunity to replace certain components in the framework if they
object to some part of TG. That's not the *ultimate* goal, but Kevin is
a pragmatic guy and recognizes that component bias can hurt TurboGears'
adoption and so is trying to address that in some fashion.
I feel I'm in front of a white clean canvas and I just start coding.
I like the flexibility of being able to choose each part of "my own
framework".
I even created a small script that does the automatic crud stuff for me
(not as polished as Django for sure, but it works like a charm).
Sure, and if you are doing it as a hobby, or to learn or to perhaps take
over the world with a new ORM, then that's great. But if someone is
paying you by the hour to develop a website for them and you are writing
an ORM when there's already half dozen out there, then someone probably
isn't getting their money's worth. This is the problem frameworks were
meant to address: putting your focus back on your web application rather
than all the details that go into it. Do you lose some flexibility?
You bet. Not a lot, but a noticeable amount. Of course the flip side
is that you can turn out a pretty sophisticated web app *by yourself* in
a few days.

I saw DHH of Ruby on Rails fame at FOSCON last year and he really
impressed me with is no-nonsense philosophy about web frameworks. His
approach is the antithesis of Zope, Joomla, et al. Django and TurboGears
are no-nonsense in the same vein: they aren't about providing every
feature under the sun or blazing performance or ultimate
configurability. They are about eliminating the time-consuming details
that you face every time you start a project.
Anyway, there's still an issue with using these frameworks:
Availability. It's very hard, if not impossible, to find a decent web
host at an affordable price. Although I guess many of those who use
Django, for example, run their own host.
Not true. As I posted elsewhere there are many hosts who will run
frameworks (I suspect the pressure of Ruby on Rails really pushed open
the door). Here's a short list from the TurboGears site:
http://www.turbogears.org/preview/do...t/hosting.html

And from the Django site:
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/D...iendlyWebHosts

WebFaction (formerly python-hosting) even has a control panel that will
install the framework of your choice with a mouse-click.

Regards,
Cliff

--

Aug 1 '06 #30
In article <11**********************@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
northband <no*******@gmail.comwrote:
>Just spoke with my department and looks like we still want to go with a
server scripting method. Although MVC may be better fit, for the sake
of the learning curve, we want to use a PSP style method.
Aug 1 '06 #31
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:14:03 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
northband wrote:
>Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have a
few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD

I may be a bit biased, but I would not run a web server under Windows...
That's not biased - that's just good sense. When I started in
this business, there was a saying "Nobody ever got fired for
recommending IBM" - even though there were sometimes better
solutions, IBM was the politically safe choice. Windows has now
filled that niche, sadly. BSD is a hard sell in many shops,
and it has nothing to do with it's merits, which are considerable.
When you consider that you can build a BSD server with the
kernel stripped down to exactly the pieces you need, and load
only the packages you need, when you consider that the BSDs have
dominated the netcraft uptimes charts, one wonders just what
process is gone through to EVER select a Windows server platform.
I want, no, I demand a server to be secure, stable and efficient.
On all three criteria, Windows loses hands-down.

>2. Site consists of result pages for auctions and items for sale (100
per page)
3. MySQL (Dell Poweredge w/AMD) database server connected to my web
server

Have you considered Postgresql instead ?
Ditto - I don't mind MySQL for serving up fairly static content,
but when the transactions get a bit more rough and tumble, I've
been very satisfied with PostgreSQL.
Aug 1 '06 #32
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:56 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-07-31 15:00:15, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>In fact, the real question IMHO is: what would MySQL advantage over
PostgreSQL be ?-)

A few years ago I did some research, and the result was that while
PostgreSQL was claimed to have more features and a better design, the
reports of database corruption seemed to have been more frequent than with
MySQL. The usual reason given was that MySQL was more mature.

I assume you don't agree... :)

Gerhard
Maturity is an interesting word. The PostgreSQL pedigree
reaches back about thirty years, which in some peoples minds,
would constitute a degree of maturity. While I can't claim to
have done your extensive (and well documented) research, I can
say that I was a happy MySQL user a couple of years ago, using
it to quickly serve up fairly static content. Happy, that is,
until I put it into a more dynamic order entry/processing
environment. I started finding glitches - orphaned records -
one table totally corrupted. I found I was spending more and
more time coding to make sure the transactions completed, and
less time developing new code. I switched that client to
PostgreSQL and have had ZERO problems since. Many of the
"features" that MySQL is only now adding are playing catchup
to core data integrity values that PostgreSQL has had for much
longer, so it could be argued that in some areas, MySQL can
be said to be much less "mature".
Aug 1 '06 #33
On 2006-08-01 21:04:07, Conrad wrote:
>A few years ago I did some research, and the result was that while
PostgreSQL was claimed to have more features and a better design, the
reports of database corruption seemed to have been more frequent than with
MySQL.
I can't claim to have done your extensive (and well documented) research,
You maybe should consider new reading glasses. Or learn how to respond to
the correct message. Either you somehow got it all completely wrong, or you
responded to the wrong message.

Or is there something in PostgreSQL that makes its users acidic? :)

Gerhard

Aug 2 '06 #34
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:26:14 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-08-01 21:04:07, Conrad wrote:
>>A few years ago I did some research, and the result was that while
PostgreSQL was claimed to have more features and a better design, the
reports of database corruption seemed to have been more frequent than
with MySQL.
>I can't claim to have done your extensive (and well documented)
research,

You maybe should consider new reading glasses. Or learn how to respond to
the correct message. Either you somehow got it all completely wrong, or
you responded to the wrong message.

Or is there something in PostgreSQL that makes its users acidic? :)

Gerhard
Well, maybe so -

I followed up to this message:
Subject: Re: Using Python for my web site
From: Gerhard Fiedler <ge*****@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:12:56 -0300

Which begins "A few years ago" and is signed Gerhard. It appears
that Bruno and Sybren did the same, no? Perhaps we could get a
referal for all of us to an optician for group rates?

Here's my issue - someone, who according to my defective newsreader
and clearly myopic eyes appeared to be you, once again invoked the
word research. Not only research, but results. I've done research.
It's a rigorous pain in the kiester, and it's seldom as black and
white as you hoped it would be going into the project. But due to
the blood I've donated to a couple of research projects, I would
hope that the words "research" and "results" carried some honest
syntactic weight. In other words, if I've done research, I would
hope it involved more than reading a couple of Linux Journal
articles, and a blog posting by some kid who's been serving up
pictures of his sister's kitties with MySQL for two years now with
no problems.

I haven't seen any significant research on PosgreSQL vs. MySQL
in an apples-to-apples, detached, no-axes-to-grind study. I
have seen a number of "tastes great" "less filling" studies.
I have seen MySQL bite me on the butt, more than once, and I'm
deeply attached to my butt, however anectdotal that may be.

But I'll have the honesty to not claim it's "research". Just
hands-on experience with a tool.

And no, PostgeSQL admins didn't get acidic using PostgreSQL,
which is proven to be calming, regrow hair, whiten your teeth
and improve stamina (it really does - I've done research on it).

We got that way from dealing with other DBs before we switched.

Cheers,

Conrad
Aug 2 '06 #35
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 23:26 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Or is there something in PostgreSQL that makes its users acidic? :)
Well, ACID is popular in PostgreSQL circles.

Cliff
--

Aug 2 '06 #36
On 2006-08-02 00:51:28, Conrad wrote:
Which begins "A few years ago"
Exactly. Isn't this a good start for honesty? It doesn't claim to state
anything up to date.

It continues "I did some research", "some" being a very clear indicator
that I didn't consider this a thorough research. From the stated results of
this research it should be clear to any reasonable reader what kind of
research that was. "Claimed to have", "seemed to have" are not really
expressions that try to claim more than they are.

What does it mean to you when someone says "reports seemed to have been"?
Is that what you call "extensive (and well documented) research"? If so,
your standards don't really seem to be what you seem to say they are.

It appears that Bruno and Sybren did the same, no?
No. Neither Bruno nor Sybren got defensive or resorted to sarcasm.
Perhaps we could get a referal for all of us to an optician for group
rates?
Or for a few therapy sessions. There's no need to get defensive, just
because someone spent a day a few years ago reading documentation,
searching the web and newsgroups for experiences that people have with both
databases (like you and Cliff), got at that time the impression that what
those people reported (anecdotically -- that's all one can get without tons
of time and money to spend) was what I wrote it was, and stated this. I did
not overstate any of that, nor did I make it less subjective than it was.

So what's your problem? Why the sarcasm? "A blog posting by some kid who's
been serving up pictures of his sister's kitties with MySQL" -- again the
same sarcasm. Having a bad week?
Here's my issue - someone, who according to my defective newsreader and
clearly myopic eyes appeared to be you, once again invoked the word
research. Not only research, but results. I've done research.
Read the context. I didn't use the "r" word without context. You may not
like the word in that (very "light") context, but that's a personal issue,
and I couldn't really foresee it. The context was pretty clear, at least
for someone with a minimum of goodwill, wasn't it?
I haven't seen any significant research on PosgreSQL vs. MySQL in an
apples-to-apples, detached, no-axes-to-grind study.
Neither have I. I would have been glad to read it, at the time I needed to
decide between the two. So yes, it's all anectodical "evidence" (or is that
also too strong a word?). Hunting for that is the only form of research
someone like me (not a database admin, but in the need of selecting
databases for projects) can afford. I thought that was kind of understood.
BTW, compared to a lot of "research" that has the only function of
providing a paper to further the career of someone and "prove" some
preconceived notions, my (admittedly very light) research was done with
honesty, without predisposition towards any results and with the desire to
actually get results. I just spent on it what I could afford. That may not
be enough for everybody else's standards, but that's how I (and many
others) need to operate.

Maybe I could have used a more appropriate word. I just don't know one;
"research" was the closest I came up with.

Gerhard

Aug 2 '06 #37
Conrad a écrit :
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:14:03 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>>northband wrote:
>>>Hi, I am interested in re-writing my website in Python vs PHP but have a
few questions. Here are my specs, please advise as to which
configuration would be best:

1.Dell Poweredge Server, w/IIS, currently Windows but considering
FreeBSD

I may be a bit biased, but I would not run a web server under Windows...


That's not biased
Well, actually, yes it is. Definitively.
<troll>
To make a long story short, my opinion is that the only sensible thing
to do with Windows is to wipe it out and install an OS instead. OTHO,
there are surely strong objective reasons for *not* using Windows - I
just don't feel like wasting my time finding them !-)
</troll>
Aug 2 '06 #38
Luis M. González a écrit :
(snip).
I guess that the reason for not having used a framework already is
laziness...
Strange enough, laziness is my first reason for using frameworks ;-)

Aug 2 '06 #39
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
To make a long story short, my opinion is that the only sensible thing
to do with Windows is to wipe it out and install an OS instead.
If you're convinced you won't be running Windows, why deal with the
problem so late in the game? Instead, order a system from a vendor who
won't ship an operating system you aren't going to use. Otherwise,
we'll just keep hearing from vendors about there being no demand for
anything other than Windows, and thus supposedly no reason to offer any
real choice of operating systems.

Paul

P.S. One good reason for using something UNIX-like is the apparently
superior availability of Web and database server solutions for such
platforms, and Python works rather well with many of them, of course.

Aug 2 '06 #40
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 10:46 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
On 2006-08-02 00:51:28, Conrad wrote:
Which begins "A few years ago"

Exactly. Isn't this a good start for honesty? It doesn't claim to state
anything up to date.

It continues "I did some research", "some" being a very clear indicator
that I didn't consider this a thorough research. From the stated results of
this research it should be clear to any reasonable reader what kind of
research that was. "Claimed to have", "seemed to have" are not really
expressions that try to claim more than they are.
I think the communication breakdown here is two-fold:

1) PostgreSQL fans are perhaps a bit paranoid about claims of MySQL
being better. There used to be a tiny bit of truth in this claim for
certain applications (mostly relating to performance and ease of use).
This makes them tend to read statements such as yours as an attack and
so you get defensive responses.
Also, comparing MySQL to PostgreSQL is a bit like comparing PHP to
Python: not even in the same class. PostgreSQL users probably consider
the whole comparison is a bit insulting to begin with, then to suggest
that MySQL *might* be better is practically a slap in the face ;-)

2) When you qualify statements with modifiers such as "some", "seemed",
etc, you are almost bound to be misinterpreted, since those modifiers
are apparently invisible on the net. I suspect most people scan
messages, taking away the main point but discarding all the nice words
the writer was so careful to write.
For future reference, if you don't know and intend to convey that you
don't, it's probably best to end your statement (no matter how carefully
qualified) with a clear statement that you are fishing for informative
responses.

For instance, were I to say (on this list):

"I've heard that Python is slow compared to PHP, and that many people
recommend PHP because it's hard to find hosting for Python apps
anyway.", I'd probably get a nice mix of both helpful replies and
extremely irritable ones, despite the fact I clearly qualified my
statements. Both of those statements were at least somewhat true at one
point and as such tend to invoke more passionate responses from Python
proponents. On the other hand, had I appended "So I'd like some other
opinions because I don't know." to the end, it would probably cut the
irritation down considerably (or at least be in a much more defensible
position if it didn't).

Regards,
Cliff

--

Aug 3 '06 #41
On 2006-08-02 22:17:38, Cliff Wells wrote:
On the other hand, had I appended "So I'd like some other opinions
because I don't know." to the end, it would probably cut the irritation
down considerably (or at least be in a much more defensible position if
it didn't).
Thanks, that's one of the conclusions to which I also came. That final
question was missing, even though I felt it was implied. I really had no
clue that this is such a touchy subject.

Another one is that it seems (here I go again :) that there is something
like a marriage between Python and PostgreSQL (or in other words, that
Python fans that develop web apps have a tendency to favor PostgreSQL). Is
there something like this? (Here is the question :)

Gerhard

Aug 3 '06 #42
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 23:13 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Thanks, that's one of the conclusions to which I also came. That final
question was missing, even though I felt it was implied. I really had no
clue that this is such a touchy subject.
Every opinion in technology seems to be touchy for someone ;-)
Another one is that it seems (here I go again :) that there is something
like a marriage between Python and PostgreSQL (or in other words, that
Python fans that develop web apps have a tendency to favor PostgreSQL). Is
there something like this? (Here is the question :)
I don't think so. If I had to venture an opinion, my impression has
been that the MySQL/PostgreSQL division lies more along the line between
web applications and other types of apps. For some reason, web people
seem to either prefer MySQL or (more likely) fall back to it as a
default. If there's a bias toward PostgreSQL in the Python crowd, I
suspect that's due to the fact that Python's presence seems to be more
weighted toward non-web programming relative to other languages (this
being due to Python's general applicability, not an implication Python
isn't suited for the web).

Regards,
Cliff

--

Aug 3 '06 #43
Cliff Wells wrote:
For myself, I handle user-installation of TurboGears pretty much like I
do all user-installed Python packages: using setuptools. Any user who
uses easy_install or 'python setup.py install' gets their packages
automatically installed into a subdirectory of their home directory and
that takes precedence over the system installed packages. Works like a
charm.
May I ask how you handle clashes with packages already installed in
site-packages? Once I tried something like ~/lib/python and set up
distutils accordingly, easy_install wouldn't work if the package was
installed system-wide...

thanks
Paul
Aug 3 '06 #44
Cliff Wells wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 23:13 -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
Another one is that it seems (here I go again :) that there is something
like a marriage between Python and PostgreSQL (or in other words, that
Python fans that develop web apps have a tendency to favor PostgreSQL). Is
there something like this? (Here is the question :)
Take a look at Harald Armin Massa's EuroPython talk abstract for
evidence of "something like a marriage":

http://indico.cern.ch/contributionDi...d=41&confId=44

Where are the slides, Harald? ;-)
I don't think so. If I had to venture an opinion, my impression has
been that the MySQL/PostgreSQL division lies more along the line between
web applications and other types of apps. For some reason, web people
seem to either prefer MySQL or (more likely) fall back to it as a
default.
I'd argue that since MySQL was reportedly easier to install on Windows
than PostgreSQL until relatively recently (ie. until a few years ago),
and that MySQL appealed to the lightweight database system niche that
mSQL occupied a few years before that, people didn't hesitate to
install it in situations where just considering installing something
else might have put them off. Meanwhile, PostgreSQL has been around for
so long that it probably has a place in the hearts of people who
remember the era when you'd use UNIX for serious research or enterprise
endeavours and where PostgreSQL was the best open source tool for the
task. Of course, most GNU/Linux distributions have packaged both of
them for some time.
If there's a bias toward PostgreSQL in the Python crowd, I
suspect that's due to the fact that Python's presence seems to be more
weighted toward non-web programming relative to other languages (this
being due to Python's general applicability, not an implication Python
isn't suited for the web).
I'd like to hope that it's because Python people stop to consider the
established alternatives rather than following the stampede to the
latest "hot product".

Paul

Aug 3 '06 #45
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 15:51 +0200, paul kölle wrote:
Cliff Wells wrote:
For myself, I handle user-installation of TurboGears pretty much like I
do all user-installed Python packages: using setuptools. Any user who
uses easy_install or 'python setup.py install' gets their packages
automatically installed into a subdirectory of their home directory and
that takes precedence over the system installed packages. Works like a
charm.
May I ask how you handle clashes with packages already installed in
site-packages? Once I tried something like ~/lib/python and set up
distutils accordingly, easy_install wouldn't work if the package was
installed system-wide...
I followed these instructions:

http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCen...r-installation

So far I've had no issues with package clashes.

Regards,
Cliff
--

Aug 3 '06 #46
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 09:49 +0200, Sybren Stuvel wrote:
Cliff Wells enlightened us with:
1) PostgreSQL fans are perhaps a bit paranoid about claims of MySQL
being better. There used to be a tiny bit of truth in this claim
for certain applications (mostly relating to performance and ease of
use).

I even find PostgreSQL easier to use than MySQL :)
These days certainly, by quite a wide margin.
Sounds like the Fox News Network to me. "Some people say...." If that
doesn't sound familiar, check out the documentary "Outfoxed".
My main news source on Fox remains "The Simpsons".

Cliff

Aug 3 '06 #47
Cliff Wells wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 22:25 -0700, Luis M. González wrote:
IMHO the best way of using mod_python is with its publisher handler.
It let's you code your applications in a MVC (model view controller)
style.

While I agree (or at least consider the point moot) that this is
possibly the best way to use plain mod_python, I'd disagree that it's a
good way to develop modern web applications in Python. By the time
you've decided on every bit of framework to use, and made all the little
decisions that go into turning a fresh, clean spot on your hard drive
into an application, what you've done is reinvent TurboGears rather than
develop your application.
However, at least whatever you come up with would be better documented
than TurboGears. ;)

(I reserve the right to amend this jocular opinion after TurboGears
hits version 1.0.)

--
Ben Sizer

Aug 4 '06 #48
Paul Boddie a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>To make a long story short, my opinion is that the only sensible thing
to do with Windows is to wipe it out and install an OS instead.


If you're convinced you won't be running Windows, why deal with the
problem so late in the game? Instead, order a system from a vendor who
won't ship an operating system you aren't going to use.
Paul, I'm afraid you're answering to the wrong person here... FWIW, at
my company, we made a deal with the local PC shop : we together maintain
the gentoo-based distro that runs on our machines, and that he also
offers to his other customers...
Aug 6 '06 #49

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

14 posts views Thread by Tim Parkin | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by bmiras | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Carl Waldbieser | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Edward Diener | last post: by
reply views Thread by Richard Taylor | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by Petr Jakes | last post: by
reply views Thread by Alimah | last post: by
1 post views Thread by jmalone | last post: by
reply views Thread by jack112 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.