Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On 31 ene, 00:24, Damjan gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Damjan, and does ipython works from $PYTHONUSERBASE? because it doesn't works on virtualenv. If if works then would be another great advantage :) Yes it works. I've just installed the distro version of ipython, and it can import the modules in my USERBASE, no problem. So you don't even need to install it in the virtual environment. This is just what I wanted. Now I only waits that Ubuntu adds Py 2.6 very soon. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Previously Gael Pasgrimaud wrote: Here it is: http://www.gawel.org/howtos/howto-install-pylons-with-buildout It might be useful to document using collective.recipe.modwsgi as well. That makes it trivial to use pylons with mod_wsgi from a buildout environment. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote: Previously Gael Pasgrimaud wrote: Here it is: http://www.gawel.org/howtos/howto-install-pylons-with-buildout It might be useful to document using collective.recipe.modwsgi as well. That makes it trivial to use pylons with mod_wsgi from a buildout environment. I always use mod_proxy but I can add a pointer in the tips section. Look like an example already exist on the pypi page. I can also add a tips to use collective.recipe.supervisor to control a pylons process Do you see any other useful recipe ? Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.netIt is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Damjan, and does ipython works from $PYTHONUSERBASE? because it doesn't works on virtualenv. If if works then would be another great advantage :) Yes it works. I've just installed the distro version of ipython, and it can import the modules in my USERBASE, no problem. So you don't even need to install it in the virtual environment. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Why not package management system on the system like apt/yum/MacPorts? For Pylons/TurboGears users, their system's package system would be preferable to setuptools', because it's robost and easier to manage their packages easily. Because distro release cycles can't keep up with the rate of change in Python packages. You may need a version that the distro doesn't provide. Even if it's just one package, you're into local-install land. You can create any OS packages yourself. Also, distro packages can only be one version at a time, whereas you may have one application that needs one version and another application that needs another. Virtualenv handles this but OS packages don't. You're right but I haven't ever needed multiple versions of a package on one box, so I can't comment on this. Thanks, --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Oh, this is the same as the per-user install directory? http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0370/ I thought there could be only one site-packages per user, not multiple ones per application. yes, that's the feature, $PYTHONUSERBASE controls which environment you are using, so you can have as many as you want (the *user* as such doesn't matter any). I've been using it for some time, and looks good to me, haven't seen any problems. It's much cleaner too.. no copies of anything (neither the interpreter, neither the other modules that virtualenv copies or links), no hacks in some other modules. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Damjan, and does ipython works from $PYTHONUSERBASE? because it doesn't works on virtualenv. If if works then would be another great advantage :) On 29 ene, 16:39, Damjan gdam...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, this is the same as the per-user install directory?http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0370/ I thought there could be only one site-packages per user, not multiple ones per application. yes, that's the feature, $PYTHONUSERBASE controls which environment you are using, so you can have as many as you want (the *user* as such doesn't matter any). I've been using it for some time, and looks good to me, haven't seen any problems. It's much cleaner too.. no copies of anything (neither the interpreter, neither the other modules that virtualenv copies or links), no hacks in some other modules. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Jan 29, 10:16 am, Bernard Rankin beranki...@yahoo.com wrote: Damjan, and does ipython works from $PYTHONUSERBASE? because it doesn't works on virtualenv. If if works then would be another great advantage :) Ipython seems to work fine for me on virtualenv What about it does not work for you? Also, don't forget that virtualenv, also sets the shell's path to include a local bin directory as well. I also use ipython in virtualenvs with no problems. It has to be installed into the virtualenv, though. Also, I think once you install it, you need to deactivate then reactivate the virtualenv. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Here it is: http://www.gawel.org/howtos/howto-install-pylons-with-buildout Don't know if this doc have a place on pylonshq since the official way to install pylons is with virtualenv. On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Wyatt Baldwin wyatt.lee.bald...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 28, 10:31 am, Gael Pasgrimaud g...@gawel.org wrote: Hi, I use zc.buildout to install/deploy my pylons apps. Are you guys interested in a how to install Pylons with zc.buildout ? Yes, please. Ditto. Buildout has not gotten the usage it deserves because many potential users find it a pain to learn its configuration syntax and its way of doing things. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gael Pasgrimaud g...@gawel.org wrote:
Here it is:
http://www.gawel.org/howtos/howto-install-pylons-with-buildout
Don't know if this doc have a place on pylonshq since the official way
to install pylons is with virtualenv.
It belongs in the Pylons Cookbook initially. After that the
developers will decide whether to include it in the official docs or
link to it. I think they will at least link to it. If the original
source is ReST or HTML, you can include it in a wiki page via the
{rst}...{rst} or {html}...{html} tags I think. Or if that's too
cumbersome, you can just link to it from an appropriate Cookbook page.
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
--
Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-discuss group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gael Pasgrimaud g...@gawel.org wrote:
Here it is:
http://www.gawel.org/howtos/howto-install-pylons-with-buildout
Don't know if this doc have a place on pylonshq since the official way
to install pylons is with virtualenv.
It belongs in the Pylons Cookbook initially. After that the
developers will decide whether to include it in the official docs or
link to it. I think they will at least link to it. If the original
source is ReST or HTML, you can include it in a wiki page via the
{rst}...{rst} or {html}...{html} tags I think. Or if that's too
cumbersome, you can just link to it from an appropriate Cookbook page.
Added. I just need to remove my sourcecode directive.
http://wiki.pylonshq.com/display/pylonscommunity/Howto+install+Pylons+with+buildout
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
np. buildout has changed my life. I agree that it's not so easy to
understand but when you understand it you never have all the problems
that this thread refer to.
--
Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
pylons-discuss group.
To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On 28/01/2009, at 6:40 PM, Noah Gift wrote: . And the problems are different on Windows vs Mac vs Linux, and App Engine adds another dimension. At work people say, Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it, and I often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do. Not to belabor the point, but couldn't this be automatically tested on a mac buildbot with a linux and windows virtual machine? You easy_install pylons, which in a sense is a build, and then run tests, which a few standard configurations? Maybe hardware could get donated for this. Snakebite might be suitable for this. http://www.snakebite.org/ Cheers Chris Miles --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Hi, I use zc.buildout to install/deploy my pylons apps. Are you guys interested in a how to install Pylons with zc.buildout ? -- Gael On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ben Bangert b...@groovie.org wrote: On Jan 27, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Eric Lemoine wrote: I agree that it'd be good to have virtualenv shipped with Python. I wish I did have to tell my Pylons application users to first download virtualenv, dearchive it, extract virtualenv.py, etc. Ah, on that front, some good news if they're running linux/OSX. A one-liner will download a bootstrap script, make a new virtualenv, and setup Pylons inside it: curl http://pylonshq.com/download/0.9.7/go-pylons.py | python - mydevenv Where mydevenv is the name of the virtualenv. I actually like this approach so much, I use it whenever deploying a Pylons app to first setup Pylons in a new virtualenv. Note that the installation docs document this: http://pylonshq.com/docs/en/0.9.7/gettingstarted/#installing Note if you take a look inside the go-pylons script, there's a section where you can declare commands to run in the new virtualenv, so you could further customize the bootstrap script to get your own Pylons app, install its dependencies, etc. Cheers, Ben --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Jan 28, 10:31 am, Gael Pasgrimaud g...@gawel.org wrote: Hi, I use zc.buildout to install/deploy my pylons apps. Are you guys interested in a how to install Pylons with zc.buildout ? Yes, please. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Wyatt Baldwin wyatt.lee.bald...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 28, 10:31 am, Gael Pasgrimaud g...@gawel.org wrote: Hi, I use zc.buildout to install/deploy my pylons apps. Are you guys interested in a how to install Pylons with zc.buildout ? Yes, please. Ditto. Buildout has not gotten the usage it deserves because many potential users find it a pain to learn its configuration syntax and its way of doing things. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
That's what Guido says, and it's why we're at an impasse. Distutils is fine if you just need to download one or two packages and python setup.py install them. But that doesn't scale when a package has a dozen dependencies that recursively have dependencies. Without Setuptools, Python and TurboGears couldn't exist, and Zope and Twisted would not have been able to split themselves into several packages. Why not package management system on the system like apt/yum/MacPorts? For Pylons/TurboGears users, their system's package system would be preferable to setuptools', because it's robost and easier to manage their packages easily. That said, setuptools+virtualenv might be good for developers, and it would be nice to have dependency support in distutils. PEP 345 says distutils have requires metadata, so at least we could expect it to be added in near future, if someone write a patch for it. People coming to Python from Perl and Ruby expect to be able to just run a command to download and install a package. That problem was solved ten years ago, so why does Python still not have it standard? If Setuptools and Virtualenv or the equivalent were built into Python, you could trust that every computer that has successfully installed Python can install packages and make virtual environments the same way. That would eliminate 2/3 of the problems users have when installing Pylons, and the subsequent need to explain the problems and workarounds in the installation docs. And the problems are different on Windows vs Mac vs Linux, and App Engine adds another dimension. At work people say, Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it, and I often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Akira Kitada akit...@gmail.com wrote: That's what Guido says, and it's why we're at an impasse. Distutils is fine if you just need to download one or two packages and python setup.py install them. But that doesn't scale when a package has a dozen dependencies that recursively have dependencies. Without Setuptools, Python and TurboGears couldn't exist, and Zope and Twisted would not have been able to split themselves into several packages. Why not package management system on the system like apt/yum/MacPorts? For Pylons/TurboGears users, their system's package system would be preferable to setuptools', because it's robost and easier to manage their packages easily. Because distro release cycles can't keep up with the rate of change in Python packages. You may need a version that the distro doesn't provide. Even if it's just one package, you're into local-install land. Also, distro packages can only be one version at a time, whereas you may have one application that needs one version and another application that needs another. Virtualenv handles this but OS packages don't. OS packages could be made to allow multiple versions side by side (easy_install -m), and each app could use pkg_resources.require() to put the version it needs onto sys.path. But Setuptools is particularly fragile in this area so few applications have gone this route, plus users do not expect to have to require packages by default. And pip shows an installation structure that's arguably better but is incompatible with multi-versioning. In production, I've gone to always using virtualenvs. That way if I install a new website with different library versions, I don't have to worry about potentially breaking existing sites. I use OS packages only for things that are particularly difficult to install (MySQLdb, LDAP, PIL). Fortunately these are pretty version-independent, so all applications can use them. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Akira Kitada akit...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] In production, I've gone to always using virtualenvs. That way if I install a new website with different library versions, I don't have to worry about potentially breaking existing sites. I use OS packages only for things that are particularly difficult to install (MySQLdb, LDAP, PIL). Fortunately these are pretty version-independent, so all applications can use them. I've adopted this same strategy in the last 6 months or so. Works great. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Wyatt Baldwin wyatt.lee.bald...@gmail.com wrote: On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Akira Kitada akit...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] In production, I've gone to always using virtualenvs. That way if I install a new website with different library versions, I don't have to worry about potentially breaking existing sites. I use OS packages only for things that are particularly difficult to install (MySQLdb, LDAP, PIL). Fortunately these are pretty version-independent, so all applications can use them. I've adopted this same strategy in the last 6 months or so. Works great. same here works great for dev and prod across any OS. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
In production, I've gone to always using virtualenvs. Python 2.6 now supports $PYTHONUSERBASE, just set it to a directory (doesn't need to exist), for example: export PYTHONUSERBASE=$HOME/mydev/ pip.py install FormAlchemy Now I do have in ~/.pydistutils.cfg [install] user=True It's similar to virtualenv, but kind-of more clean, and doesn't copy the whole python executable in each env (which I never liked). To switch to another env, just reset the variable. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Damjan gdam...@gmail.com wrote: In production, I've gone to always using virtualenvs. Python 2.6 now supports $PYTHONUSERBASE, just set it to a directory (doesn't need to exist), for example: export PYTHONUSERBASE=$HOME/mydev/ pip.py install FormAlchemy Now I do have in ~/.pydistutils.cfg [install] user=True It's similar to virtualenv, but kind-of more clean, and doesn't copy the whole python executable in each env (which I never liked). To switch to another env, just reset the variable. I haven't heard of this. Has anybody else compared it with Virtualenv to see its advantages and disadvantages? What exactly does it do? Does it do the same thing that the custom Python interpreter in the virtualenv does, or less? Oh, this is the same as the per-user install directory? http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0370/ I thought there could be only one site-packages per user, not multiple ones per application. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Just a few questions. I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do about it except switch to another programming language. What programming language has a reliable package management system built in? Why do you think distutils is not reliable? Isn't it enough to use the package management systen you system provides when you need complete and rigorous one? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Akira Kitada akit...@gmail.com wrote: Just a few questions. I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do about it except switch to another programming language. What programming language has a reliable package management system built in? Why do you think distutils is not reliable? Isn't it enough to use the package management systen you system provides when you need complete and rigorous one? That's what Guido says, and it's why we're at an impasse. Distutils is fine if you just need to download one or two packages and python setup.py install them. But that doesn't scale when a package has a dozen dependencies that recursively have dependencies. Without Setuptools, Python and TurboGears couldn't exist, and Zope and Twisted would not have been able to split themselves into several packages. People coming to Python from Perl and Ruby expect to be able to just run a command to download and install a package. That problem was solved ten years ago, so why does Python still not have it standard? If Setuptools and Virtualenv or the equivalent were built into Python, you could trust that every computer that has successfully installed Python can install packages and make virtual environments the same way. That would eliminate 2/3 of the problems users have when installing Pylons, and the subsequent need to explain the problems and workarounds in the installation docs. And the problems are different on Windows vs Mac vs Linux, and App Engine adds another dimension. At work people say, Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it, and I often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Hi I agree that it'd be good to have virtualenv shipped with Python. I wish I did have to tell my Pylons application users to first download virtualenv, dearchive it, extract virtualenv.py, etc. Cheers, Eric 2009/1/27, Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Akira Kitada akit...@gmail.com wrote: Just a few questions. I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do about it except switch to another programming language. What programming language has a reliable package management system built in? Why do you think distutils is not reliable? Isn't it enough to use the package management systen you system provides when you need complete and rigorous one? That's what Guido says, and it's why we're at an impasse. Distutils is fine if you just need to download one or two packages and python setup.py install them. But that doesn't scale when a package has a dozen dependencies that recursively have dependencies. Without Setuptools, Python and TurboGears couldn't exist, and Zope and Twisted would not have been able to split themselves into several packages. People coming to Python from Perl and Ruby expect to be able to just run a command to download and install a package. That problem was solved ten years ago, so why does Python still not have it standard? If Setuptools and Virtualenv or the equivalent were built into Python, you could trust that every computer that has successfully installed Python can install packages and make virtual environments the same way. That would eliminate 2/3 of the problems users have when installing Pylons, and the subsequent need to explain the problems and workarounds in the installation docs. And the problems are different on Windows vs Mac vs Linux, and App Engine adds another dimension. At work people say, Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it, and I often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
. And the problems are different on Windows vs Mac vs Linux, and App Engine adds another dimension. At work people say, Half the trouble of Pylons is installing it, and I often have to help them install it in person because otherwise they get stuck at some error message and have no idea what to do. Not to belabor the point, but couldn't this be automatically tested on a mac buildbot with a linux and windows virtual machine? You easy_install pylons, which in a sense is a build, and then run tests, which a few standard configurations? Maybe hardware could get donated for this. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com -- Cheers, Noah --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
From what you all say I think we do agree that it is not just a superficial question of style. It goes beyond that, and there is a price to pay -- and that the price is generally justifiable. And, as Micheal eloquently states, given the looming horizon, the line taken by pylons promises to attract more and more people in the future, as more people from other worlds will learn about what py3k really offers. But then again, the more eclipsed java developers come to pylons, the harder it will be for pylons to dearly hold on to that slippery simplicity... ! I of course agree with Jorge's argument on the advantages of a non- monolithic framework And yes of course that having different components to install will naturally give rise to numerous installation problems. But, it remains that that there were several strange setuptools-related problems when I first started to get pylons projects going, problems that I was not interested about in the very least. The bugginess on that front seems to be getting less, but without getting into endless religious discussions you have to admit there is an added sometimes-cryptic layer added about how packages are installed, where the py source code is, etc. And, simplicity suffers a little hit as a consequence. As for replacing components, I completely appreciate the possibility of doing so. If pylons did not allow me to use *the* state-of-the-art templating (that of course is http://evoque.gizmojo.org/ ;-) it would certainly be a less attractive framework. However most of the docs, default settings etc are geared towards a default profile of components, namely mako and SA. Go out of that mould, and you may have integration puzzles to solve, or in any case you are still dependent on the unused package anyway (in the case of mako). As for paste, I certainly do not want to fiddle with replacing the builtin dev web server -- has anyone (apart from pylons developers that is) even considered trying? Small anecdote about unicode issues, and migration to Py3k... unicode is unicode, be it py2 or py3. Nothing has changed conceptually in py3 on this, except that all strings are now unicode -- something that has been a best practice in py2 since how many years? As for porting evoque to py3k, once I got actually started on it, I ended up getting it done in one sitting. It was easy, mostly a superficial set of import and naming adjustments. Evoque also has a little library to automatically guess (with hints allowed) the encoding of a text file, so it certainly has to deal with encodings. But it was easy to do because the application internally was in the first place all unicode anyway. Cheers, mario On Jan 25, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Jorge Vargas wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Mario Ruggier ma...@ruggier.org wrote: On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Mike Orr wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that they like Pylons' style better. Hi Mike, I think I understand perfectly the intention of what you are saying here, but the last almost off-handish reference to style made me do a double-take on what you mean... What I do not understand is that given all the noisy promises of an ideal world where all python web applications are built following wsgi and installed with setuptools, the difference we are talking about cannot be simply written off as a matter of style, but more architectural and philosophical. Pylons has, with the best of intentions, tried to embrace the new open-architecture as fully as possible. And, it pays and will continue to pay a fairly high price for that choice... Example of past price paid, just look at the number of what-should- be- a-non-issue installation problems in the mail archive. search django list for geodjango, search for using app X with app Y, installations issues always happen when you have more than one source of packages. That said most of the installation issues on this list are simply people trying to get authkit going enough said. Example of price to pay, iiuc, apparently wsgi/paste/whatever has some unicode issues, so pylons has to wait for those to be fixed and third-party released to be able to even consider 3.0? Excuse me? now this is interesting. I actually see that as an advantage. if some some reason paste becomes an evil thing, you simply drop it and replace it for something better. It happen to SO with SA, it has happen several times with templating engines. webob was introduced to pylons and no one didn't even notice. If you look at the other side of the track you just can't get rid of django ORM without killing half the framework. So the price to pay is that you have to think what components you have to use instead of
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Mario Ruggier ma...@ruggier.org wrote: From what you all say I think we do agree that it is not just a superficial question of style. There are two aspects to the style. One is the philosophy of WSGI to the core, and thus the choice of Paste as the first (and still only?) generic wayto configure and launch WSGI applications. The other aspect is Pylons' particular API of Routes, action signatures, context globals, render_mako, use of FormEncode and WebHelpers, etc. I came to Pylons because of the former, but others may use it because of the latter. It goes beyond that, and there is a price to pay -- and that the price is generally justifiable. And, as Micheal eloquently states, given the looming horizon, the line taken by pylons promises to attract more and more people in the future, as more people from other worlds will learn about what py3k really offers. But then again, the more eclipsed java developers come to pylons, the harder it will be for pylons to dearly hold on to that slippery simplicity... ! I of course agree with Jorge's argument on the advantages of a non- monolithic framework And yes of course that having different components to install will naturally give rise to numerous installation problems. But, it remains that that there were several strange setuptools-related problems when I first started to get pylons projects going, problems that I was not interested about in the very least. I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do about it except switch to another programming language. Small anecdote about unicode issues, and migration to Py3k... unicode is unicode, be it py2 or py3. Nothing has changed conceptually in py3 on this, except that all strings are now unicode -- something that has been a best practice in py2 since how many years? I think the issue is that the headers are defined as strings but they're actually bytestrings in Python 3. Python changed the semantics of what a string is, and now that strings and bytestrings don't autoconvert it becomes a users' issue. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
I of course agree with Jorge's argument on the advantages of a non- monolithic framework And yes of course that having different components to install will naturally give rise to numerous installation problems. But, it remains that that there were several strange setuptools-related problems when I first started to get pylons projects going, problems that I was not interested about in the very least. I hate to pass the buck, but this is Python's fault for not having reliable package management built in. There's nothing Pylons can do about it except switch to another programming language. Pylons has a nice new website, and with it is a direct link to a continuous integration status page, via Buildbot. Would it perhaps be useful to include the installation of Pylons into the continuous integration system? It does seem like various people have had issues getting Pylons to build successfully at one point or another, and this is equally important as whether the code works, in my opinion. There is a simple way to fix this problem. You work around the Python packaging system, or at least only have core developers use it to assemble a build that was generated from a continuous integration system. Then tell easy_install, or plain distutils, to just install the tar file. This is what Django does, and it isn't exactly elegant, but then again, I have never had a problem installing Django, and I have had a problem installing Pylons. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Mike Orr wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that they like Pylons' style better. Hi Mike, I think I understand perfectly the intention of what you are saying here, but the last almost off-handish reference to style made me do a double-take on what you mean... What I do not understand is that given all the noisy promises of an ideal world where all python web applications are built following wsgi and installed with setuptools, the difference we are talking about cannot be simply written off as a matter of style, but more architectural and philosophical. Pylons has, with the best of intentions, tried to embrace the new open-architecture as fully as possible. And, it pays and will continue to pay a fairly high price for that choice... Example of past price paid, just look at the number of what-should-be- a-non-issue installation problems in the mail archive. Example of price to pay, iiuc, apparently wsgi/paste/whatever has some unicode issues, so pylons has to wait for those to be fixed and third-party released to be able to even consider 3.0? Excuse me? I fully respect the choices that pylons makes, and almost always I am fine with them. There is anyway always a judgement call between wide- open genericity and narrower-scoped simplicity, and there is no right balance. Pylons probably errs towards the first, and django towards the second. But simplicity is very slippery, and very easily lost. The promise of generic inter-operational components more often than not exacts a higher price than what it gives back. How have the wsgi promises of inter-changeable web app building blocks measured up against the overhead from added complexities and issues? If you take for example qp, one of the few non-wsgi framework around, it strikes an amazing balance between simplicity and genericity, and it is not hindered by possibly-interfering impositions of a generic api such as wsgi. It can be used with or without the Durus object database that accompanies it, but it can (probably) just as easily also be used with sqlalchemy or any other ORM. QP also adopts the more robust single-thread multi- process approach to building apps, a choice that wsgi deems (pls correct and excuse me if I am saying something silly here!) to not particularly cater for. But, deployment of a qp app cannot be easier... SCGI works like a charm e.g. over apache, and is even more charming over lighttpd that has builtin support for it. Its framework api is grokkable in minutes... plus, a small additional fact, qp + durus (and the associated templating utility, qpy) have been available for python 3.0 since --day-1--, that is since the official first release date of python 3.0. All I am saying is that buying into a new way of doing things is fine but one has to be able to look back and sans-emotions admit what has actually worked and what has not. And, if at the beginning it the motivation was philosophical, playing it down in hindsight to a matter of style indicates to me that it has not all worked as well as hoped. A lot of Django fans have done the same of course, but a lot of other Django fans have not really looked into any other frameworks, they just came to Django from Rails or PHP because they heard about it first and didn't look any further. But this is a sociological fact, true of all software where the user- base goes beyond a certain mass -- blind following of the trend. But, I would add it is probably a good thing... everybody must go down his own path, and if django attracts people from rails/php, those same people will, after some experience with django forge their own opinions and preferences... and maybe some of them will then discover, and prefer, pylons. Or maybe they'll just go back to php ;-!! mario -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
what a strange post. There are no unicode issues in WSGI, and the usage of WSGI in the generic sense doesn't complicate things to any degree - the spec is just a single function call.If there are Py3K issues in Paste, lets first make it clear that *every* application that deals explicitly with character encodings needs code changes to work with Py3K. I can assure you any issues Paste has in this area will be resolved deftly and correctly by Ian Bicking. The only price Pylons is paying is it assumes the developer would like to consider how his application should be architected, instead of those decisions being made implicitly and invisibly. This is a cultural situation created by the dominance of PHP, a decidedly don't make me think / I didn't even know there was anything to think about platform, in the LAMP world. If and when other cultures, such as that of the Java and .NET/C# communities (the theme of which would be, we know how to code, let's do this exactly the way we think it should be), decide to embrace Python more fully, projects like Pylons will establish a more prominent userbase. The most popular web frameworks in the Java community, such as Struts2 (nothing like Struts1) and Spring MVC, translate conceptually to a WSGI stack very directly. On Jan 23, 8:16 am, Mario Ruggier ma...@ruggier.org wrote: On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Mike Orr wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that they like Pylons' style better. Hi Mike, I think I understand perfectly the intention of what you are saying here, but the last almost off-handish reference to style made me do a double-take on what you mean... What I do not understand is that given all the noisy promises of an ideal world where all python web applications are built following wsgi and installed with setuptools, the difference we are talking about cannot be simply written off as a matter of style, but more architectural and philosophical. Pylons has, with the best of intentions, tried to embrace the new open-architecture as fully as possible. And, it pays and will continue to pay a fairly high price for that choice... Example of past price paid, just look at the number of what-should-be- a-non-issue installation problems in the mail archive. Example of price to pay, iiuc, apparently wsgi/paste/whatever has some unicode issues, so pylons has to wait for those to be fixed and third-party released to be able to even consider 3.0? Excuse me? I fully respect the choices that pylons makes, and almost always I am fine with them. There is anyway always a judgement call between wide- open genericity and narrower-scoped simplicity, and there is no right balance. Pylons probably errs towards the first, and django towards the second. But simplicity is very slippery, and very easily lost. The promise of generic inter-operational components more often than not exacts a higher price than what it gives back. How have the wsgi promises of inter-changeable web app building blocks measured up against the overhead from added complexities and issues? If you take for example qp, one of the few non-wsgi framework around, it strikes an amazing balance between simplicity and genericity, and it is not hindered by possibly-interfering impositions of a generic api such as wsgi. It can be used with or without the Durus object database that accompanies it, but it can (probably) just as easily also be used with sqlalchemy or any other ORM. QP also adopts the more robust single-thread multi- process approach to building apps, a choice that wsgi deems (pls correct and excuse me if I am saying something silly here!) to not particularly cater for. But, deployment of a qp app cannot be easier... SCGI works like a charm e.g. over apache, and is even more charming over lighttpd that has builtin support for it. Its framework api is grokkable in minutes... plus, a small additional fact, qp + durus (and the associated templating utility, qpy) have been available for python 3.0 since --day-1--, that is since the official first release date of python 3.0. All I am saying is that buying into a new way of doing things is fine but one has to be able to look back and sans-emotions admit what has actually worked and what has not. And, if at the beginning it the motivation was philosophical, playing it down in hindsight to a matter of style indicates to me that it has not all worked as well as hoped. A lot of Django fans have done the same of course, but a lot of other Django fans have not really looked into any other frameworks, they just came to Django from Rails or PHP because they heard about it first and didn't look any further. But this is a
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
well put. On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Michael Bayer zzz...@gmail.com wrote: what a strange post. There are no unicode issues in WSGI, and the usage of WSGI in the generic sense doesn't complicate things to any degree - the spec is just a single function call.If there are Py3K issues in Paste, lets first make it clear that *every* application that deals explicitly with character encodings needs code changes to work with Py3K. I can assure you any issues Paste has in this area will be resolved deftly and correctly by Ian Bicking. The only price Pylons is paying is it assumes the developer would like to consider how his application should be architected, instead of those decisions being made implicitly and invisibly. This is a cultural situation created by the dominance of PHP, a decidedly don't make me think / I didn't even know there was anything to think about platform, in the LAMP world. If and when other cultures, such as that of the Java and .NET/C# communities (the theme of which would be, we know how to code, let's do this exactly the way we think it should be), decide to embrace Python more fully, projects like Pylons will establish a more prominent userbase. The most popular web frameworks in the Java community, such as Struts2 (nothing like Struts1) and Spring MVC, translate conceptually to a WSGI stack very directly. On Jan 23, 8:16 am, Mario Ruggier ma...@ruggier.org wrote: On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Mike Orr wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that they like Pylons' style better. Hi Mike, I think I understand perfectly the intention of what you are saying here, but the last almost off-handish reference to style made me do a double-take on what you mean... What I do not understand is that given all the noisy promises of an ideal world where all python web applications are built following wsgi and installed with setuptools, the difference we are talking about cannot be simply written off as a matter of style, but more architectural and philosophical. Pylons has, with the best of intentions, tried to embrace the new open-architecture as fully as possible. And, it pays and will continue to pay a fairly high price for that choice... Example of past price paid, just look at the number of what-should-be- a-non-issue installation problems in the mail archive. Example of price to pay, iiuc, apparently wsgi/paste/whatever has some unicode issues, so pylons has to wait for those to be fixed and third-party released to be able to even consider 3.0? Excuse me? I fully respect the choices that pylons makes, and almost always I am fine with them. There is anyway always a judgement call between wide- open genericity and narrower-scoped simplicity, and there is no right balance. Pylons probably errs towards the first, and django towards the second. But simplicity is very slippery, and very easily lost. The promise of generic inter-operational components more often than not exacts a higher price than what it gives back. How have the wsgi promises of inter-changeable web app building blocks measured up against the overhead from added complexities and issues? If you take for example qp, one of the few non-wsgi framework around, it strikes an amazing balance between simplicity and genericity, and it is not hindered by possibly-interfering impositions of a generic api such as wsgi. It can be used with or without the Durus object database that accompanies it, but it can (probably) just as easily also be used with sqlalchemy or any other ORM. QP also adopts the more robust single-thread multi- process approach to building apps, a choice that wsgi deems (pls correct and excuse me if I am saying something silly here!) to not particularly cater for. But, deployment of a qp app cannot be easier... SCGI works like a charm e.g. over apache, and is even more charming over lighttpd that has builtin support for it. Its framework api is grokkable in minutes... plus, a small additional fact, qp + durus (and the associated templating utility, qpy) have been available for python 3.0 since --day-1--, that is since the official first release date of python 3.0. All I am saying is that buying into a new way of doing things is fine but one has to be able to look back and sans-emotions admit what has actually worked and what has not. And, if at the beginning it the motivation was philosophical, playing it down in hindsight to a matter of style indicates to me that it has not all worked as well as hoped. A lot of Django fans have done the same of course, but a lot of other Django fans have not really looked into any other frameworks, they just came to Django from Rails
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 07:05 -0800, Michael Bayer wrote: The only price Pylons is paying is it assumes the developer would like to consider how his application should be architected, instead of those decisions being made implicitly and invisibly. This is a cultural situation created by the dominance of PHP, a decidedly don't make me think / I didn't even know there was anything to think about platform, in the LAMP world. If and when other cultures, such as that of the Java and .NET/C# communities (the theme of which would be, we know how to code, let's do this exactly the way we think it should be), decide to embrace Python more fully, projects like Pylons will establish a more prominent userbase. The most popular web frameworks in the Java community, such as Struts2 (nothing like Struts1) and Spring MVC, translate conceptually to a WSGI stack very directly. Very well put. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdr...@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:05 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? yes, so does php, your point? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that they like Pylons' style better. A lot of Django fans have done the same of course, but a lot of other Django fans have not really looked into any other frameworks, they just came to Django from Rails or PHP because they heard about it first and didn't look any further. -- Mike Orr sluggos...@gmail.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Is Django more popular than Pylons?
And if so, why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Maybe you can have a look at the archive: http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss/browse_thread/thread/8fbf7e2037d1a53c -- Gael On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:05 AM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Django more popular than Pylons?
Yes. And that's because if the same question is asked in a Django group, you'll probably get far more similar trolls. Jerry On Jan 18, 7:05 pm, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote: And if so, why? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
