Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Apr 9, 2008, at 3:58 AM, Alagu Madhu wrote: How to get started with Pylons and Google App Engine ? So we've made some progress over the past few days. You can now pretty much get Pylons working on App Engine. Ian Bicking has written a nice rundown of what had to happen: http://blog.ianbicking.org/2008/04/13/app-engine-and-pylons/ You'll also need his appengine-monkey library, which has a wiki page on how to get started with Pylons on App Engine: http://code.google.com/p/appengine-monkey/wiki/Pylons Give it a whirl and let us know how it goes! -- Philip Jenvey --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google. It frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on to something else. Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode width. Please do not dismiss this as a non-issue. Half the replies in this thread are in the from for me it's not a problem or only newbies can't compile modules, C code in python frameworks is a *big* issue for end users. Both the people that program in the framework and the people that use the programs those people have coded. C extensions are great for performance but some times performance isn't the most important thing. I agree with Bob Ippolito as the best way to solve this is to have two libraries and fallback to the python version, but as you all know this isn't always possible. But appengine has shown us there's a few other C dependencies to be worked around if possible (without killing the performance). Because these same problems presumably come up when porting Pylons to Jython, IronPython, PyPy, etc. And if Django can do it and Pylons can't... :( this is entirely true. we shouldn't aim for cpython, we should aim for python the language. Most of fixing google apps engine will solve most of the issue for running pylons/TG on jython. -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Mike Orr wrote: [...] According to IRC yesterday, appengine doesn't allow C modules, so that takes out Mako, SQLAlchemy, and parts of Paste and Setuptools. So it will take a while to get any non-trivial Pylons app running on it. Uhm. Mako is pure Python. Or does it depend on a C-only library? SQLAlchemy is also pure Python from what I know - of course it doesn't make much sense to use it on Google AppEngine, unless you have an adapter for the Google storage system, something that doesn't make much sense anyway. -- Gerhard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Gerhard Häring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Orr wrote: [...] According to IRC yesterday, appengine doesn't allow C modules, so that takes out Mako, SQLAlchemy, and parts of Paste and Setuptools. So it will take a while to get any non-trivial Pylons app running on it. Uhm. Mako is pure Python. Or does it depend on a C-only library? I made a mistake. Mako is pure Python but it depends on Python's 'ast' module, which isn't available in appengine. Genshi has the same problem. SQLAlchemy is also pure Python from what I know - of course it doesn't make much sense to use it on Google AppEngine, unless you have an adapter for the Google storage system, something that doesn't make much sense anyway. I don't know about Google's storage system. My point is just that many web apps have significant database needs, just as some need Numeric or charting or other things. Appengine will either have to find some way to provide those, or it won't be hosting those apps. -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Pylons + Google App Engine
Hi How to get started with Pylons and Google App Engine ? Thanks Madhu Alagu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
This one time, at band camp, Alagu Madhu wrote: Hi How to get started with Pylons and Google App Engine ? Follow the appengine tutorial, and then apply your pylons knowledge to it. it's WSGI so bootstrapping your application into it should be pretty easy. The hard part will be porting your database to the data store model. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Alagu Madhu wrote: Hi How to get started with Pylons and Google App Engine ? Follow the appengine tutorial, and then apply your pylons knowledge to it. it's WSGI so bootstrapping your application into it should be pretty easy. The hard part will be porting your database to the data store model. According to IRC yesterday, appengine doesn't allow C modules, so that takes out Mako, SQLAlchemy, and parts of Paste and Setuptools. So it will take a while to get any non-trivial Pylons app running on it. http://pylonshq.com/irclogs/%23pylons/ -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to IRC yesterday, appengine doesn't allow C modules, so that takes out Mako, SQLAlchemy, and parts of Paste and Setuptools. So it will take a while to get any non-trivial Pylons app running on it. http://pylonshq.com/irclogs/%23pylons/ Let's be rational about this. I haven't tried app engine yet altough I have an account (plan to do it this weekend) but I'm reading a lot of stuff about it. My bigger concern (putting aside the terms of service for a moment) is: what's the point in porting existing libraries/frameworks and so on to make them work in the google infrastructure? Maybe I am short sighted but I guess it is too much work having two different versions of the framework just for Google. They chose the language and ported Django, let's try the system for a while before diving in the realm of forking just for the sake of it. There's also something else which bothers me, which is explained in the following use case: 1 - you have an application written in XYZ (Pylons in this case) 2 - it makes use of 10 to 15 libraries (third parties or standard) not supported -or- 1 - you decide to write it from scratch 2 - you need something not supported 3 - you port the code 4 - you try to maintain the fork following the main version 5 - one day in the future you want to get out from the Google cloud. Now you have two set of incompatibles stuff and you cannot get out unless rewriting the same stuff you ported and adapting the code from the old version. I guess AppEngine is great, and Alex Martelli will speak about it at PyCon Italy, but I'm not really sure will be for every and each type of web app. -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Lawrence Oluyede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to IRC yesterday, appengine doesn't allow C modules, so that takes out Mako, SQLAlchemy, and parts of Paste and Setuptools. So it will take a while to get any non-trivial Pylons app running on it. http://pylonshq.com/irclogs/%23pylons/ Let's be rational about this. I haven't tried app engine yet altough I have an account (plan to do it this weekend) but I'm reading a lot of stuff about it. My bigger concern (putting aside the terms of service for a moment) is: what's the point in porting existing libraries/frameworks and so on to make them work in the google infrastructure? Maybe I am short sighted but I guess it is too much work having two different versions of the framework just for Google. You're discounting the fun effect: people want to see if they can accomplish it. There is no fork of Pylons/Mako/Paste. Merely people exploring the incompatibilities to see if the same package can be made compatible for both environments. Or conversely, to go to Google (or our man in Google, Guido), and say this restriction is really unworkable for us for X, Y, and Z reasons. Because if it's unworkable for us, it's unworkable for other Python frameworks and packages that a lot of people making websites want/need to use, which excludes Google from hosting said apps. Since they want apps on their servers, and they're Python fans just like us, they may be interested in doing something about it. Anyway, pkg_resources incompatibility will give them a bigger headache in the long run than it gives us. The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google. It frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on to something else. Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode width. That's why we didn't use lxml in the WebHelpers upgrade. We looked and finally found a pure Python module that did what we need. But appengine has shown us there's a few other C dependencies to be worked around if possible (without killing the performance). Because these same problems presumably come up when porting Pylons to Jython, IronPython, PyPy, etc. And if Django can do it and Pylons can't... :( You can always take the approach where C modules are used if available, otherwise pure Python code can be used. simplejson does this, for example. -bob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Alagu Madhu wrote: Hi How to get started with Pylons and Google App Engine ? Reports of the framework neutrality of Google App Engine are much exaggerated. At this point running Pylons is not feasible. I'm very excited about App Engine, and trying to get things working, but it's going to take a while and for a while it won't be a satisfying experience for anyone who doesn't already have a lot of experience with Pylons, Paste, setuptools, and some other parts of the typical stack that are currently tricky on App Engine. Actually it won't be satisfying for anyone ;) -- but if you have experience, you can have a constructively unsatisfying experience. Ian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Apr 9, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Lawrence Oluyede wrote: Let's be rational about this. I haven't tried app engine yet altough I have an account (plan to do it this weekend) but I'm reading a lot of stuff about it. You're definitely not alone in your concerns about this. Note both of these well written blog articles: http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/apr/08/batteries-sold-separately/ And the very nice sum-up of how annoying (or even crippling) such lock- in can be: http://www.joyeur.com/2008/04/08/let-my-people-have-root Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but portability is always key to me. I want to be able to pack up and move if a hosting provider has a Terms of Service change that I don't agree with, or maybe becomes more expensive for my needs than I can get elsewhere. That said, if we can make Pylons run there with only minor tweaks to some libraries involved that does not result in a fork, I see no harm in making Pylons an option on Google App Engine. So far, the thought seems to be that most of Pylons can be made to work fairly easily (mainly by small patches to setuptools, and Paste). Beaker will also need a few small tweaks so that it can use DataStore as an optional backend (like how it optionally can use a db). That's certainly not a fork, though of course, some libraries would require such hefty changes. I'm not sure how much tweaking Mako or Genshi will need to function under AppEngine for example, but it didn't sound trivial. So, no forking just for Google, but some tweaks that don't affect performance, efficiency, etc. to Pylons or libraries it needs... I see no harm in. Cheers, Ben smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're discounting the fun effect: people want to see if they can accomplish it. There is no fork of Pylons/Mako/Paste. Merely people exploring the incompatibilities to see if the same package can be made compatible for both environments. Yes, exactly. I left out the fun effect because it would not be rational anymore :-) I agee with you for the most part but: The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google. It frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on to something else. Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode width. This is, in my ideal world, a Windows problem, not a Python one. For the record: I use Linux and MacOSX day by day and never had issues with C libraries. I already know Windows is an entire different matter. For this and a lot of other reasons I don't use Windows at all, unless to test HTML pages with IE 6/7. BTW even if the developer likes Windows as his platform most of the deployment in the Python world is done on unix machine, at least in my side of the universe. I am not sure someone will go with (for example) (Django|Pylons|TG) + Apache2 + PostgreSQL on a Windows box as the server. In my opinion the problem of the C libraries is not as big as it seems. Just don't use Windows to develop, use it at home if you like it to surf, listen to music, play games :D That's why we didn't use lxml in the WebHelpers upgrade. We looked and finally found a pure Python module that did what we need. I know and I don't blame you as developers of an entire framework. Losing compatibility with the most widespread platform is a shame but AFAIK there are lxml binaries, see: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/lxml/2.0.3 -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always take the approach where C modules are used if available, otherwise pure Python code can be used. simplejson does this, for example. Yes and it's maybe the way to go but requires careful coding at import time, something not everyone does. My complain was about the overall limitations, I know that we (as the Python community) will work around them in due time. As we will cope with the Python 3.0 migration, which I like -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Have you ever compiled PIL on OS X? It's kind of a PITA. On Windows it's a simple install exe. I've had more problems on my Mac with C libs than on my Windows box/server at work. For Linux a lot of it depends on your distribution. Calling it a Windows problem is just wrong. - Justin On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Lawrence Oluyede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're discounting the fun effect: people want to see if they can accomplish it. There is no fork of Pylons/Mako/Paste. Merely people exploring the incompatibilities to see if the same package can be made compatible for both environments. Yes, exactly. I left out the fun effect because it would not be rational anymore :-) I agee with you for the most part but: The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google. It frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on to something else. Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode width. This is, in my ideal world, a Windows problem, not a Python one. For the record: I use Linux and MacOSX day by day and never had issues with C libraries. I already know Windows is an entire different matter. For this and a lot of other reasons I don't use Windows at all, unless to test HTML pages with IE 6/7. BTW even if the developer likes Windows as his platform most of the deployment in the Python world is done on unix machine, at least in my side of the universe. I am not sure someone will go with (for example) (Django|Pylons|TG) + Apache2 + PostgreSQL on a Windows box as the server. In my opinion the problem of the C libraries is not as big as it seems. Just don't use Windows to develop, use it at home if you like it to surf, listen to music, play games :D That's why we didn't use lxml in the WebHelpers upgrade. We looked and finally found a pure Python module that did what we need. I know and I don't blame you as developers of an entire framework. Losing compatibility with the most widespread platform is a shame but AFAIK there are lxml binaries, see: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/lxml/2.0.3 -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 08:50 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google. It frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on to something else. Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode width. I think this is less true that it used to be. Microsoft now makes a free version of Visual Studio available which is sufficient to compile Python extensions on Windows: http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/ I've only used it once, several months ago, but it seemed to work fine. I think issues people might have with this will be documentation issues. As far as Mac, I don't think C extensions are much of an issue (unless you include OS9). Obviously C extensions that aren't written in a portable way are going to be a problem, but that's *their* problem. Regards, Cliff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Compiling PIL with all it's dependencies on OS X WITHOUT MacPorts or Fink is a PITA. I myself am lazy and just use MacPorts as well :). However, even with projects like MacPorts you're reliant on the project keeping updated ports of all the C libraries you need. These libraries can add a lot of value and power to Python but as Python grows beyond the standard C-Python implementation more and more, being portable will carry increased value. If you can keep your performance and do it in pure-python or even just support a alternate pure-python implementation that's a win-win. - Justin On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Lawrence Oluyede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Justin Driscoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever compiled PIL on OS X? It's kind of a PITA. On Windows it's a simple install exe. I've had more problems on my Mac with C libs than on my Windows box/server at work. For Linux a lot of it depends on your distribution. Calling it a Windows problem is just wrong. Yes I did, and it worked just fine. Maybe it is because I'm used to use MacPorts for almost everything. I can only speak about my experience, not others. -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Justin Driscoll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you ever compiled PIL on OS X? It's kind of a PITA. On Windows it's a simple install exe. I've had more problems on my Mac with C libs than on my Windows box/server at work. For Linux a lot of it depends on your distribution. Calling it a Windows problem is just wrong. Yes I did, and it worked just fine. Maybe it is because I'm used to use MacPorts for almost everything. I can only speak about my experience, not others. -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it - Upton Sinclair --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Lawrence Oluyede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always take the approach where C modules are used if available, otherwise pure Python code can be used. simplejson does this, for example. Yes and it's maybe the way to go but requires careful coding at import time, something not everyone does. It requires careful coding by the package developer, which may not have been done. So the user knows that some module has a Python fallback, but easy_install doesn't, and the user doesn't know how to coax easy_install into bypassing the C module, or how to configure it manually. That happened a couple weeks ago when Pylons-dev changed its dependency to the new version of simplejson. It wouldn't install on Windows, and the only binary eggs were for the older version. After I said, Does Pylons really need the newest version?, we downgraded the dependency to allow the older version. Since Pylons doesn't use simplejson for anything except optional features anyway (@json). -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Mike Orr wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Lawrence Oluyede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Bob Ippolito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can always take the approach where C modules are used if available, otherwise pure Python code can be used. simplejson does this, for example. Yes and it's maybe the way to go but requires careful coding at import time, something not everyone does. It requires careful coding by the package developer, which may not have been done. So the user knows that some module has a Python fallback, but easy_install doesn't, and the user doesn't know how to coax easy_install into bypassing the C module, or how to configure it manually. With App Engine, the likely case is that you install the module (which typically includes the C extension directly), then upload it, and (I *think*) in the App Engine environment the C extension just won't be importable, and so the library should fall back to the Python implementation. This is how simplejson should work. But I haven't tried it, and it's hard to know until then. It's possible, for instance, that importing the C extension will not raise an ImportError (maybe instead OSError), and that would mess things up. Ian --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 08:50 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: The problem with C libraries is a lot bigger than just Google. It frustrates users on Windows and Macintosh to no end, and many of them give up trying to install Pylons/lxml/ToscaWidgets/wxPython and go on to something else. Precompiled binaries don't always exist, are too old, hard to find, or built with the wrong C compiler or Unicode width. I think this is less true that it used to be. Microsoft now makes a free version of Visual Studio available which is sufficient to compile Python extensions on Windows: http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/ But is every Pylons user willing to/smart enough to/allowed to install and run the compiler? More to the point, it's pretty far from what they wanted to do in the first place, which is to write a web application.If Pylons doesn't do it conveniently, they'll go to something else. Arguing whether it's Microsoft's fault or not doesn't change the situation. One can say we don't care about those users, but I don't think Pylons wants to do that. -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Lawrence Oluyede wrote: This is, in my ideal world, a Windows problem, not a Python one. For the record: I use Linux and MacOSX day by day and never had issues with C libraries. I already know Windows is an entire different matter. For this and a lot of other reasons I don't use Windows at all, unless to test HTML pages with IE 6/7. Not perfect but perhaps http://www.kronenberg.org/ies4osx/ or http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page can help you avoid switching to windows at all then ;-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
Mike Orr wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Alagu Madhu wrote: Hi How to get started with Pylons and Google App Engine ? Follow the appengine tutorial, and then apply your pylons knowledge to it. it's WSGI so bootstrapping your application into it should be pretty easy. The hard part will be porting your database to the data store model. According to IRC yesterday, appengine doesn't allow C modules, so that takes out Mako, SQLAlchemy, and parts of Paste and Setuptools. So it will take a while to get any non-trivial Pylons app running on it. http://pylonshq.com/irclogs/%23pylons/ Mako can be easily switched for another templating language that does not require native code. I believe genshi fits this, if not you can of course use the django templating language, this works fine. SQLAlchemy is a non issue as the intention is that you use Google's ORM interface (looks like it's based on the Django ORM, and I'm sure I read somewhere the data ends up in a BigTable instance). Paste is replaced by google's dev_appserver.py and setup tools is almost replaced by appcfg.py. As long as you are happy to buy in to Django/Google's api's there's no problem here. Using Pylons routing/controllers + Genshi/django templates + Google's ORM shouldn't be a problem at all. You don't have all the choice in the world, but hey, the service is currently free, what do you expect? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylons + Google App Engine
On Apr 9, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
You can always take the approach where C modules are used if
available, otherwise pure Python code can be used. simplejson does
this, for example.
Unfortunately it's not just C extensions that are the problem on app
engine, it's actually Python builtin modules written in C.
E.g. the problem with Mako and Genshi on app engine is that they need
the builtin parser module to parse python code to AST. Rumor has it
some C modules, like parser, are restricted due to security concerns
-- like they would need to audit the parser module's rather hairy C
code to ensure it's not violating their restricted Python sandboxing
(though I'm not sure about this).
I'm getting the impression that the guys behind google app engine are
very Django centric, and might not be that aware of how important
Mako and Genshi are outside of Django (I think they're very important
for Django too, not every Django app uses Django templates).
I'd encourage everyone to help make them aware of how important it is
to get the pieces of our stack working: one way is by voting
('starring', click on the star) the related issues logged on their
ticket tracker:
The Mako templating doesn't work:
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=9
Incompatible with pkg_resources
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=60
Expand Python framework support to Zope3, Turbogears, and Pylons
http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=33
--
Philip Jenvey
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
