RE: Pylon with Apache
Thanks for your feedback... Good stuff. -Original Message- From: pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cliff Wells Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:55 PM To: pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Pylon with Apache On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 01:42 +, Graham Dumpleton wrote: On Apr 28, 6:40 am, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 07:36 -0600, Orr, Steve wrote: What are the advantages/disadvantages pros/cons to doing a proxy instead of just usingmod_python? Typically, proxying is: 1. easier to setup thanmod_python 2. easier to upgrade Python (nomod_python/python version issues) Can you elaborate further on what the specific mod_python/python versions issues are? Note that I ask this to learn what the problems supposedly are and why it may be any more problematic than having to recompile any third party C extension modules for Python which you may have also installed into the Python site packages directory. Such feedback would be useful because although people grumble about this and use it as a reason against using mod_python, those same people never actually come over to the mod_python mailing list to describe the problems so that mod_python may if required be improved or so they may be corrected in their understanding as to how things work. I can give you a very specific example as I'll be dealing with it in the next couple of days ;-) A customer has an old Fedora (2 or 3) installation already running lots of stuff under Apache. mod_python (as shipped by Red Hat) is compiled against Python 2.3. Python 2.4 is installed but not used by mod_python. The client now wishes to run a Django application and requires 2.4. Most likely this will mean running two instances of Apache or (more likely), having to run Django as a fastcgi. Personally, I have no problem with running Django as a fastcgi, but it wasn't the client's first choice (and I believe mod_python to be the recommended deployment method for Django). Anyway, I'm not 100% certain there's anything that can be done by the mod_python project to resolve this particular type of issue (unless perhaps it would be possible to run multiple mod_python compiled against different versions of Python on the same Apache instance, but even then, we're still talking about lots of configuration, compiling, etc that simply aren't required for a proxied application). In short, the looser coupling between the webserver and the application that proxying provides gives all the usual benefits one might expect over a fully integrated solution and frankly, there isn't much downside as far as I can tell. The only other problem area is transitioning to a newer version of Python using the same system. That is, where you might want to be able to run applications using different versions of Python. To do this would mean running two distinct instances of Apache on the same box but with different installations of mod_python/Python. Preferably if doing this one should just perhaps use two different hosts. And this is my point: with proxying this isn't even remotely an issue. So except for the two quite specific issues noted above, are your problems perhaps really just an issue of dependency management, something that is going to occur for any software components and not just mod_python itself? It occurs with any tightly coupled software system. Sometimes a tight coupling brings benefits that outweigh the issues you incur, but in this case I simply don't see the benefit of tightly integrating with the webserver. Performance benefits are usually negligible to non-existent over fastcgi or proxying and frankly I'm not sure what other benefits might even be claimed. Any feedback would be most appreciated so the real problems can be understood. Unfortunately when I have tried to dig into such claims in the past, there is usually dead silence, so can never find out what the real problems are so they can be addressed in mod_python if need be. :-( Well, here you have it ;-) 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: Pylon with Apache
There is also another way of integrating with apache: http://www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl/w/p/mod_wsgi/ Wichert. Previously Graham Dumpleton wrote: On Apr 28, 6:40 am, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 07:36 -0600, Orr, Steve wrote: What are the advantages/disadvantages pros/cons to doing a proxy instead of just usingmod_python? Typically, proxying is: 1. easier to setup thanmod_python 2. easier to upgrade Python (nomod_python/python version issues) Can you elaborate further on what the specific mod_python/python versions issues are? Note that I ask this to learn what the problems supposedly are and why it may be any more problematic than having to recompile any third party C extension modules for Python which you may have also installed into the Python site packages directory. Such feedback would be useful because although people grumble about this and use it as a reason against using mod_python, those same people never actually come over to the mod_python mailing list to describe the problems so that mod_python may if required be improved or so they may be corrected in their understanding as to how things work. FWIW, here are the specific issues that are already known about in respect of Python version issues when using mod_python. Do your specific problems match one of these or are they something else? First issue is not actually mod_python's fault and arises from fact that most binary Python distributions are not configured with --enable- shared. This means that no shared library is generated for Python, only a static library. The consequence of this is that the static objects have to be embedded within the mod_python.so Apache module. If one later upgrades Python to a newer patch revision of the same major/ minor version but don't correspondingly recompile mod_python or obtain correct new binary version of it, you run the risk of problems because the core Python code you would be running would be older and not match the Python code files and Python C extension modules in the Python installation. Newer versions of mod_python will log warnings in the Apache error log when this problem occurs. The second issue is not completely mod_python's fault but arises from how Python works out where the installed Python code files and extension modules are installed. That is, how it works out what to set sys.prefix and sys.exec_prefix to. The way Python when being initialised does this is to find which 'python' executable is in its PATH and then from that try and work out where the library directory is. Problem with this is if you have multiple Python installations of the same major/minor version number but different patch revision installed in totally different locations, eg., /usr/bin and /usr/local/ bin, it can find the wrong version as the Python version you want may not be that in the PATH for the user Apache is started as. With mod_python only way around this is to set PATH, PATHEXECUTABLE or PATHHOME environment variables in the environment of the user that Apache is started as. What should be done is for new directives to be added to mod_python called PythonExecutable and PythonHome which achieve the same thing so it can be done in Apache configuration instead. This would make it easier to resolve for those small percentage of people who have multiple Python installations on their system. Upgrading to a completely new major/minor version of Python without also using a recompiled version of mod_python will obviously also create lots of problems as it will continue to use an older version of Python, or may not even be able to find the installed mod_python Python code files anymore if old installation of Python was removed. The only other problem area is transitioning to a newer version of Python using the same system. That is, where you might want to be able to run applications using different versions of Python. To do this would mean running two distinct instances of Apache on the same box but with different installations of mod_python/Python. Preferably if doing this one should just perhaps use two different hosts. So except for the two quite specific issues noted above, are your problems perhaps really just an issue of dependency management, something that is going to occur for any software components and not just mod_python itself? Any feedback would be most appreciated so the real problems can be understood. Unfortunately when I have tried to dig into such claims in the past, there is usually dead silence, so can never find out what the real problems are so they can be addressed in mod_python if need be. :-( Graham 3. doesn't require restarting Apache as often 4. just as fast 5. frees you from having to use Apache at all (other proxy solutions are available that are usually faster and lighter than Apache) Regards, Cliff -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL
Re: Pylon with Apache
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 11:21 +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: There is also another way of integrating with apache: http://www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl/w/p/mod_wsgi/ When I saw this module, I thought oh, cool and actually (briefly) considered trying to port it to Nginx, but came back to the arguments I outlined here and ultimately decided against it. Proxying is just too dead simple and flexible. It would take demonstrably huge performance gains to change my mind. 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: Pylon with Apache
On Apr 28, 6:40 am, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 07:36 -0600, Orr, Steve wrote: What are the advantages/disadvantages pros/cons to doing a proxy instead of just usingmod_python? Typically, proxying is: 1. easier to setup thanmod_python 2. easier to upgrade Python (nomod_python/python version issues) Can you elaborate further on what the specific mod_python/python versions issues are? Note that I ask this to learn what the problems supposedly are and why it may be any more problematic than having to recompile any third party C extension modules for Python which you may have also installed into the Python site packages directory. Such feedback would be useful because although people grumble about this and use it as a reason against using mod_python, those same people never actually come over to the mod_python mailing list to describe the problems so that mod_python may if required be improved or so they may be corrected in their understanding as to how things work. FWIW, here are the specific issues that are already known about in respect of Python version issues when using mod_python. Do your specific problems match one of these or are they something else? First issue is not actually mod_python's fault and arises from fact that most binary Python distributions are not configured with --enable- shared. This means that no shared library is generated for Python, only a static library. The consequence of this is that the static objects have to be embedded within the mod_python.so Apache module. If one later upgrades Python to a newer patch revision of the same major/ minor version but don't correspondingly recompile mod_python or obtain correct new binary version of it, you run the risk of problems because the core Python code you would be running would be older and not match the Python code files and Python C extension modules in the Python installation. Newer versions of mod_python will log warnings in the Apache error log when this problem occurs. The second issue is not completely mod_python's fault but arises from how Python works out where the installed Python code files and extension modules are installed. That is, how it works out what to set sys.prefix and sys.exec_prefix to. The way Python when being initialised does this is to find which 'python' executable is in its PATH and then from that try and work out where the library directory is. Problem with this is if you have multiple Python installations of the same major/minor version number but different patch revision installed in totally different locations, eg., /usr/bin and /usr/local/ bin, it can find the wrong version as the Python version you want may not be that in the PATH for the user Apache is started as. With mod_python only way around this is to set PATH, PATHEXECUTABLE or PATHHOME environment variables in the environment of the user that Apache is started as. What should be done is for new directives to be added to mod_python called PythonExecutable and PythonHome which achieve the same thing so it can be done in Apache configuration instead. This would make it easier to resolve for those small percentage of people who have multiple Python installations on their system. Upgrading to a completely new major/minor version of Python without also using a recompiled version of mod_python will obviously also create lots of problems as it will continue to use an older version of Python, or may not even be able to find the installed mod_python Python code files anymore if old installation of Python was removed. The only other problem area is transitioning to a newer version of Python using the same system. That is, where you might want to be able to run applications using different versions of Python. To do this would mean running two distinct instances of Apache on the same box but with different installations of mod_python/Python. Preferably if doing this one should just perhaps use two different hosts. So except for the two quite specific issues noted above, are your problems perhaps really just an issue of dependency management, something that is going to occur for any software components and not just mod_python itself? Any feedback would be most appreciated so the real problems can be understood. Unfortunately when I have tried to dig into such claims in the past, there is usually dead silence, so can never find out what the real problems are so they can be addressed in mod_python if need be. :-( Graham 3. doesn't require restarting Apache as often 4. just as fast 5. frees you from having to use Apache at all (other proxy solutions are available that are usually faster and lighter than Apache) 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
Re: Pylon with Apache
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 01:42 +, Graham Dumpleton wrote: On Apr 28, 6:40 am, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 07:36 -0600, Orr, Steve wrote: What are the advantages/disadvantages pros/cons to doing a proxy instead of just usingmod_python? Typically, proxying is: 1. easier to setup thanmod_python 2. easier to upgrade Python (nomod_python/python version issues) Can you elaborate further on what the specific mod_python/python versions issues are? Note that I ask this to learn what the problems supposedly are and why it may be any more problematic than having to recompile any third party C extension modules for Python which you may have also installed into the Python site packages directory. Such feedback would be useful because although people grumble about this and use it as a reason against using mod_python, those same people never actually come over to the mod_python mailing list to describe the problems so that mod_python may if required be improved or so they may be corrected in their understanding as to how things work. I can give you a very specific example as I'll be dealing with it in the next couple of days ;-) A customer has an old Fedora (2 or 3) installation already running lots of stuff under Apache. mod_python (as shipped by Red Hat) is compiled against Python 2.3. Python 2.4 is installed but not used by mod_python. The client now wishes to run a Django application and requires 2.4. Most likely this will mean running two instances of Apache or (more likely), having to run Django as a fastcgi. Personally, I have no problem with running Django as a fastcgi, but it wasn't the client's first choice (and I believe mod_python to be the recommended deployment method for Django). Anyway, I'm not 100% certain there's anything that can be done by the mod_python project to resolve this particular type of issue (unless perhaps it would be possible to run multiple mod_python compiled against different versions of Python on the same Apache instance, but even then, we're still talking about lots of configuration, compiling, etc that simply aren't required for a proxied application). In short, the looser coupling between the webserver and the application that proxying provides gives all the usual benefits one might expect over a fully integrated solution and frankly, there isn't much downside as far as I can tell. The only other problem area is transitioning to a newer version of Python using the same system. That is, where you might want to be able to run applications using different versions of Python. To do this would mean running two distinct instances of Apache on the same box but with different installations of mod_python/Python. Preferably if doing this one should just perhaps use two different hosts. And this is my point: with proxying this isn't even remotely an issue. So except for the two quite specific issues noted above, are your problems perhaps really just an issue of dependency management, something that is going to occur for any software components and not just mod_python itself? It occurs with any tightly coupled software system. Sometimes a tight coupling brings benefits that outweigh the issues you incur, but in this case I simply don't see the benefit of tightly integrating with the webserver. Performance benefits are usually negligible to non-existent over fastcgi or proxying and frankly I'm not sure what other benefits might even be claimed. Any feedback would be most appreciated so the real problems can be understood. Unfortunately when I have tried to dig into such claims in the past, there is usually dead silence, so can never find out what the real problems are so they can be addressed in mod_python if need be. :-( Well, here you have it ;-) 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: Pylon with Apache
RE 5. mod_python works, but it's nicer to use Apache (listening on port 80) to proxy to another Web server running your Pylons app. Okay, can please elaborate on the meaning of that highly technical term nicer? :-) What are the advantages/disadvantages pros/cons to doing a proxy instead of just using mod_python? AtDhVaAnNkCsE !! -Original Message- From: pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shannon -jj Behrens Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:58 PM To: pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Pylon with Apache On 4/17/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Jose Galvez írta: as fare as odbc is concerned, pylons or any other web framework really has nothing to do with it, thats up to python and DB2 support. If your on the windows platform ODBC can be done with the win32all package and there is also the mxODBC package. On linux I'm not sure. As for Apache, I use pylons with apache all the time and use the mod_proxy to get the urls to work Jose Hmmm... As I read the Pylons and Django is supports the ActiveRecord (TurboGears' foo), and some of the predefined views are based on this idea (SQLObject, SQLAlchemy). Or these special functions are based on Python's DB2? I'm not sure because I'm lama in this makewebframework theme... :-( I read these things here: http://jesusphreak.infogami.com/blog/vrp1 Unless I myself am confused, it seems like this conversation is a bit confused. Let me try to clear things up: 1. You can use any DBAPI adaptor with Pylons in order to talk to a database without using an ORM. I've used one before on Linux to talk to SQLServer. 2. Some ORMs may not support ODBC. I do know that SQLAlchemy works with both SQLServer and Oracle, though. 3. Pylons does work under mod_python. 4. To deal with the reload problem, *in development* I like to set Apache's MaxRequestsPerChild to 1. 5. mod_python works, but it's nicer to use Apache (listening on port 80) to proxy to another Web server running your Pylons app. I do this in production. Each of my apps has its own server (from Paste), but they're all proxied behind Apache. Best Regards, -jj -- 'Software Engineering' is something of an oxymoron. It's very difficult to have real engineering before you have physics, and there isn't anything even close to a physics for software. -- L. Peter Deutsch --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 07:36 -0600, Orr, Steve wrote: What are the advantages/disadvantages pros/cons to doing a proxy instead of just using mod_python? Typically, proxying is: 1. easier to setup than mod_python 2. easier to upgrade Python (no mod_python/python version issues) 3. doesn't require restarting Apache as often 4. just as fast 5. frees you from having to use Apache at all (other proxy solutions are available that are usually faster and lighter than Apache) 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/20/07, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually it's the word database that's that's throwing me, admin is totally cool :) Unless I'm missing the whole point, and I doubt that I am, you guys are writing code to generate scaffold views and controllers for projects' declared models and models are an abstraction on top of databases. For a given nice, consistent model interface, someone should be able to swap out databases and even replace the underlying data model with something else altogether (although if your models rely on introspection of your db to determine their attributes, that last part goes out the window). Don't get me wrong. I have really high hopes for you guys as we, at my company, are getting ready to port our fairly large php4 (sic) app to python and, knowing that our software lead is really looking for some instant forms for our data to alleviate having to write sql for random devhelp requests and reports and the fact that I really want to push pylons (you could say that after the last week I've spent looking at the docs and code I'm diggin' it...), once you're done you may be getting some immediate feedback from the commercial sector (again, hopefully). You're not writing a database adminstration piece, you're writing a data administration piece aimed at a layer above databases. Hm, well if you are about that. AdminPylon is a data/content administration tool, really.Need to make a proper description. -- WBR, Dan Korostelev --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/20/07, Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/20/07, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually it's the word database that's that's throwing me, admin is totally cool :) Unless I'm missing the whole point, and I doubt that I am, you guys are writing code to generate scaffold views and controllers for projects' declared models and models are an abstraction on top of databases. For a given nice, consistent model interface, someone should be able to swap out databases and even replace the underlying data model with something else altogether (although if your models rely on introspection of your db to determine their attributes, that last part goes out the window). Don't get me wrong. I have really high hopes for you guys as we, at my company, are getting ready to port our fairly large php4 (sic) app to python and, knowing that our software lead is really looking for some instant forms for our data to alleviate having to write sql for random devhelp requests and reports and the fact that I really want to push pylons (you could say that after the last week I've spent looking at the docs and code I'm diggin' it...), once you're done you may be getting some immediate feedback from the commercial sector (again, hopefully). You're not writing a database adminstration piece, you're writing a data administration piece aimed at a layer above databases. Hm, well if you are about that. AdminPylon is a data/content administration tool, really.Need to make a proper description. -- WBR, Dan Korostelev Word. -- Erik Jones [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: Pylon with Apache
ActiveRecord is a Ruby-on-Rails concept, although there are parallel ideas in any Object-Relational-Mapper, of which SQLObject and SQLAlchemy are two. There are not predefined views based on these in Pylons. You can certainly write an application that uses an ORM for database access, but this isn't required. So there is no any view/template to show records, or edit them simply? I need to define them all? In modpy that was the problem too, I need to make my formbuilder tools to simplify the editing/showing of records, handle lookups (foreign keys), etc. What the module/library/package used by the pylon-masters to solve this problem? (To avoid recreation of reports in every search for, and to centralize/ globalize the handling of reports/data forms). Thanks for your help: dd --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/19/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ActiveRecord is a Ruby-on-Rails concept, although there are parallel ideas in any Object-Relational-Mapper, of which SQLObject and SQLAlchemy are two. There are not predefined views based on these in Pylons. You can certainly write an application that uses an ORM for database access, but this isn't required. So there is no any view/template to show records, or edit them simply? I need to define them all? In modpy that was the problem too, I need to make my formbuilder tools to simplify the editing/showing of records, handle lookups (foreign keys), etc. What the module/library/package used by the pylon-masters to solve this problem? (To avoid recreation of reports in every search for, and to centralize/ globalize the handling of reports/data forms). There is a discussion on this list called automatic database administration tool that you might want to read. Pylons does not include these tools out-of-the-box. Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/19/07, Sean Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/19/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ActiveRecord is a Ruby-on-Rails concept, although there are parallel ideas in any Object-Relational-Mapper, of which SQLObject and SQLAlchemy are two. There are not predefined views based on these in Pylons. You can certainly write an application that uses an ORM for database access, but this isn't required. So there is no any view/template to show records, or edit them simply? I need to define them all? In modpy that was the problem too, I need to make my formbuilder tools to simplify the editing/showing of records, handle lookups (foreign keys), etc. What the module/library/package used by the pylon-masters to solve this problem? (To avoid recreation of reports in every search for, and to centralize/ globalize the handling of reports/data forms). There is a discussion on this list called automatic database administration tool that you might want to read. Pylons does not include these tools out-of-the-box. Sean Although that name is a little misleading as it's really more of a form scaffold generation tool for SA (thus far...) models. -- Erik Jones [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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/19/07, Sean Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/19/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ActiveRecord is a Ruby-on-Rails concept, although there are parallel ideas in any Object-Relational-Mapper, of which SQLObject and SQLAlchemy are two. There are not predefined views based on these in Pylons. You can certainly write an application that uses an ORM for database access, but this isn't required. So there is no any view/template to show records, or edit them simply? I need to define them all? In modpy that was the problem too, I need to make my formbuilder tools to simplify the editing/showing of records, handle lookups (foreign keys), etc. What the module/library/package used by the pylon-masters to solve this problem? (To avoid recreation of reports in every search for, and to centralize/ globalize the handling of reports/data forms). There is a discussion on this list called automatic database administration tool that you might want to read. Pylons does not include these tools out-of-the-box. In TurboGears, they have CatWalk, but it's for SQLObject. Django has this feature as well. Pylons doesn't. When I chose Pylons, I felt that it had benefits that were more important than this one feature. But, your mileage may vary. If this is a feature that you absolutely must have, I suggest Django. I don't use Django because I really dislike the templating engine, and I prefer to use SQLAlchemy. Nothing is perfect ;) Best Regards, -jj -- http://jjinux.blogspot.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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Pylon with Apache
In TurboGears, they have CatWalk, but it's for SQLObject. Django has this feature as well. Pylons doesn't. When I chose Pylons, I felt that it had benefits that were more important than this one feature. But, your mileage may vary. If this is a feature that you absolutely must have, I suggest Django. I don't use Django because I really dislike the templating engine, and I prefer to use SQLAlchemy. Nothing is perfect ;) It doesn't take but 10 minutes or so to set up Django to do admin stuff so maybe that's an option? Thanks, S Stephen F. Steiner Integrated Development Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.integrateddevcorp.com (603)433-1232 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/19/07, Dan Korostelev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/19/07, Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/19/07, Sean Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a discussion on this list called automatic database administration tool that you might want to read. Pylons does not include these tools out-of-the-box. Although that name is a little misleading as it's really more of a form scaffold generation tool for SA (thus far...) models. I don't think that the name is misleading. Project's target is to develop a controller that provides a ready-to-use component that web-developers could add to their applications so their site administrators would be able to easily manage database content. Eventually, AdminPylon will support table relationship and more site-specific layout settings. It has nothing to do with phpMyAdmin or something like that if you think of the word admin in that context, it's something like Django DB admin tool. Actually it's the word database that's that's throwing me, admin is totally cool :) Unless I'm missing the whole point, and I doubt that I am, you guys are writing code to generate scaffold views and controllers for projects' declared models and models are an abstraction on top of databases. For a given nice, consistent model interface, someone should be able to swap out databases and even replace the underlying data model with something else altogether (although if your models rely on introspection of your db to determine their attributes, that last part goes out the window). Don't get me wrong. I have really high hopes for you guys as we, at my company, are getting ready to port our fairly large php4 (sic) app to python and, knowing that our software lead is really looking for some instant forms for our data to alleviate having to write sql for random devhelp requests and reports and the fact that I really want to push pylons (you could say that after the last week I've spent looking at the docs and code I'm diggin' it...), once you're done you may be getting some immediate feedback from the commercial sector (again, hopefully). You're not writing a database adminstration piece, you're writing a data administration piece aimed at a layer above databases. -- Erik Jones [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: Pylon with Apache
Shannon -jj Behrens írta: 1. You can use any DBAPI adaptor with Pylons in order to talk to a database without using an ORM. I've used one before on Linux to talk to SQLServer. 2. Some ORMs may not support ODBC. I do know that SQLAlchemy works with both SQLServer and Oracle, though. That was I want to know. I have pyodbc component so I can use DBISAM connection through ODBC with PyDB2 API. 3. Pylons does work under mod_python. Thanks! 4. To deal with the reload problem, *in development* I like to set Apache's MaxRequestsPerChild to 1. Yes, this is the only way to get out from Module Reloading hell. But I don't know that this MaxRequestsPerChild property is global to the server, or I can set this property in every virtual machines? 5. mod_python works, but it's nicer to use Apache (listening on port 80) to proxy to another Web server running your Pylons app. I do this in production. Each of my apps has its own server (from Paste), but they're all proxied behind Apache. And how you create this proxy? With mod_rewrite? I very-very interesting in it, because if possible, I want to avoid using of modpy, but I don't know, how to do it. Please send me a little example to test it in my big site! (If I disturb this list with my lama questions, please use my private mail (gmail) address. And I want to know something about pylons' web server. If you know about the server's working method, please write some links. (I used Zope before modpy, and I know it's weak points. I want to know something about pylons server's weak points). Thanks for your help: dd --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/18/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shannon -jj Behrens írta: 4. To deal with the reload problem, *in development* I like to set Apache's MaxRequestsPerChild to 1. Yes, this is the only way to get out from Module Reloading hell. But I don't know that this MaxRequestsPerChild property is global to the server, or I can set this property in every virtual machines? The documentation is pretty clear: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mpm_common.html#maxrequestsperchild 5. mod_python works, but it's nicer to use Apache (listening on port 80) to proxy to another Web server running your Pylons app. I do this in production. Each of my apps has its own server (from Paste), but they're all proxied behind Apache. And how you create this proxy? With mod_rewrite? I very-very interesting in it, because if possible, I want to avoid using of modpy, but I don't know, how to do it. Please send me a little example to test it in my big site! (If I disturb this list with my lama questions, please use my private mail (gmail) address. Max Ischenko sent you the link a few days ago, but here it is again: http://docs.pythonweb.org/display/pylonscookbook/Deployment And I want to know something about pylons' web server. If you know about the server's working method, please write some links. (I used Zope before modpy, and I know it's weak points. I want to know something about pylons server's weak points). Pylons is built on Paste. The documentation for Paste is what you will want to read: http://pythonpaste.org/ Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
Hi! Jose Galvez írta: as fare as odbc is concerned, pylons or any other web framework really has nothing to do with it, thats up to python and DB2 support. If your on the windows platform ODBC can be done with the win32all package and there is also the mxODBC package. On linux I'm not sure. As for Apache, I use pylons with apache all the time and use the mod_proxy to get the urls to work Jose Hmmm... As I read the Pylons and Django is supports the ActiveRecord (TurboGears' foo), and some of the predefined views are based on this idea (SQLObject, SQLAlchemy). Or these special functions are based on Python's DB2? I'm not sure because I'm lama in this makewebframework theme... :-( I read these things here: http://jesusphreak.infogami.com/blog/vrp1 dd --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/17/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Jose Galvez írta: as fare as odbc is concerned, pylons or any other web framework really has nothing to do with it, thats up to python and DB2 support. If your on the windows platform ODBC can be done with the win32all package and there is also the mxODBC package. On linux I'm not sure. As for Apache, I use pylons with apache all the time and use the mod_proxy to get the urls to work Jose Hmmm... As I read the Pylons and Django is supports the ActiveRecord (TurboGears' foo), and some of the predefined views are based on this idea (SQLObject, SQLAlchemy). ActiveRecord is a Ruby-on-Rails concept, although there are parallel ideas in any Object-Relational-Mapper, of which SQLObject and SQLAlchemy are two. There are not predefined views based on these in Pylons. You can certainly write an application that uses an ORM for database access, but this isn't required. Or these special functions are based on Python's DB2? DB-API 2 is simply a standard on which python interacts with a database. It defines the classes and their members that each database module must supply. ORMs are often built on top of the DB-API compatible modules. I'm not sure because I'm lama in this makewebframework theme... :-( Unfortunately, if you want to get anything done, you will probably want to actually pick one up and start using it. There really isn't much of a shortcut to learning them other than lots of documentation reading combined with a fair bit of trial (and, often, error). Sean --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
On 4/17/07, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Jose Galvez írta: as fare as odbc is concerned, pylons or any other web framework really has nothing to do with it, thats up to python and DB2 support. If your on the windows platform ODBC can be done with the win32all package and there is also the mxODBC package. On linux I'm not sure. As for Apache, I use pylons with apache all the time and use the mod_proxy to get the urls to work Jose Hmmm... As I read the Pylons and Django is supports the ActiveRecord (TurboGears' foo), and some of the predefined views are based on this idea (SQLObject, SQLAlchemy). Or these special functions are based on Python's DB2? I'm not sure because I'm lama in this makewebframework theme... :-( I read these things here: http://jesusphreak.infogami.com/blog/vrp1 Unless I myself am confused, it seems like this conversation is a bit confused. Let me try to clear things up: 1. You can use any DBAPI adaptor with Pylons in order to talk to a database without using an ORM. I've used one before on Linux to talk to SQLServer. 2. Some ORMs may not support ODBC. I do know that SQLAlchemy works with both SQLServer and Oracle, though. 3. Pylons does work under mod_python. 4. To deal with the reload problem, *in development* I like to set Apache's MaxRequestsPerChild to 1. 5. mod_python works, but it's nicer to use Apache (listening on port 80) to proxy to another Web server running your Pylons app. I do this in production. Each of my apps has its own server (from Paste), but they're all proxied behind Apache. Best Regards, -jj -- 'Software Engineering' is something of an oxymoron. It's very difficult to have real engineering before you have physics, and there isn't anything even close to a physics for software. -- L. Peter Deutsch --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Pylon with Apache
as fare as odbc is concerned, pylons or any other web framework really has nothing to do with it, thats up to python and DB2 support. If your on the windows platform ODBC can be done with the win32all package and there is also the mxODBC package. On linux I'm not sure. As for Apache, I use pylons with apache all the time and use the mod_proxy to get the urls to work Jose durumdara wrote: Hi! We have used Apache with modpython3. We have used our owned python code as framework, and we used DBISAM databases with ODBC connections. Now I read about Pylons and Django. As I see the DJANGO not supports the ODBC connection. So I want to ask about Pylons: Can I use Pylons under Apache? We have PHP, Python sites (8-10 virtual hosts) and we want to replace only one or two projects with frameworks. But we don't want to use another port, we must use the port 80. So if we want to use Pylons, we need to transport these packages, or need to make Pylons to works under apache. Can we do these things? And: is Pylons supports the ODBC connections? Thanks for your help: dd --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Pylon with Apache
Hi! An user helped me with this: You could consider modwsgi: http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/ And next I found this info: http://pylonshq.com/project/pylonshq/wiki/ModPython But I need to get answer to these questions too: 1.) The development under modpy sometimes became very hard, because the python in the normal working mode does not reload the modules are loaded before. But in web development when we change something in source, the site need to reflect these changes. This is not too easy to solve the problems caused by changes (objects are changed, some globals are flushed, persistent databases closed, etc.). The developer sometimes is see only the he/she is refreshed the page, but nothing is happened. Reload problem occured. In php that is no problem, because the source is read and interpreted again by the interpreter, so the changed are reflected in a moment. Before of modpy 3.3 I used my own system to load and reinterpret pages (see exec) without this reload hell. I want to ask that how to pylon avoid these problems when I use modpython/wsgi gateway? Or I need to restart my website after modifications? 2. We need to use DBISAM ODBC connection. Can Pylons handle these connections too? Thanks for your help: dd On Apr 12, 4:55 pm, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! We have used Apache with modpython3. We have used our owned python code as framework, and we used DBISAM databases with ODBC connections. Now I read about Pylons and Django. As I see the DJANGO not supports the ODBC connection. So I want to ask about Pylons: Can I use Pylons under Apache? We have PHP, Python sites (8-10 virtual hosts) and we want to replace only one or two projects with frameworks. But we don't want to use another port, we must use the port 80. So if we want to use Pylons, we need to transport these packages, or need to make Pylons to works under apache. Can we do these things? And: is Pylons supports the ODBC connections? Thanks for your help: dd --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Pylon with Apache
Hi, On Apr 12, 5:55 pm, durumdara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I want to ask about Pylons: Can I use Pylons under Apache? Sure you can. Check out http://docs.pythonweb.org/display/pylonscookbook/Deployment, there are plenty of options. We have PHP, Python sites (8-10 virtual hosts) and we want to replace only one or two projects with frameworks. You can use mod_rewrite to select what goes to your Pylons app and what goes to PHP (if I understood your q). But we don't want to use another port, we must use the port 80. Use mod_rewrite. So if we want to use Pylons, we need to transport these packages, or need to make Pylons to works under apache. Can we do these things? The developers.org.ua site works just like this. And: is Pylons supports the ODBC connections? No idea, but you can google for it. Max. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
