On 23 oct, 21:30, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:47 PM, bruno desthuilliers
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's indeed a pretty bad idea to refer to the project name in import
> > statements (as well as in a couple other places too FWIW), and I
> > defnitively fail to understand why it's documented that way.
>
> It's documented that way because it means we can have a tutorial that
> doesn't immediately dump import-path configuration issues onto people
> who are brand-new to Python;
Mmm... Well, I have few experience with, say, developping on exotic
platforms like Windows, but I never had any import-path related
problem skipping the projectname in imports (directs or not...) using
the builtin dev server. And I don't see how one could use a more
"deployment-oriented" configuration (Apache or whatever) without
having to deal with import path somehow. But I'm probably not really
representative of the average Django newcomer, so I may have miss
something obvious here...
> doing things the way the tutorial does
> them, everything automatically ends up on the Python path thanks to
> manage.py.
Except when one doesn't strictly follow the tutorial and use another
name for the project - which happened very recently !-)
> This means, of course, that there is a need for followup documentation
> which explains that this isn't always the best way to develop
> real-world apps (in just the same way as the tutorial shows several
> "wrong" ways to do things like template rendering, etc., before
> showing the "right" way). Any volunteers to write it?
Isn't it what you're already doing in your talks, slides, and on your
blog ?-) FWIW, me not understanding (so far at least) why the tutorial
is written that way also comes from the contradiction between the
tutorial and your own writings.
About volunteering to write an 'advanced' tutorial, as far as I'm
concerned, I'm not sure I'm a great tutorial writer - nor even a great
writer at all. Not being a native english speaker doesn't help
neither. But I'll happily work on translating this follow-up when
it'll comes out (and hopefully will contribute some code until then -
there are a couple things in the pipe).
Oh, and while we're at it: please don't take offense of my occasional
(and very mild) criticism of some minor point of the doc or whatever.
I really think Django is by now the best available Python web
framework, and probably one of the best web frameworks around whatever
the language (ok, a bit biased here...). Almost every points that
bugged me a couple years ago (pre-magic-removal, think it was 0.91 ?)
and made me look at alternatives has been solved since then, and you
guys clearly made a pretty good job, both on the technical and the
'marketing' side, and I'm sincerly *very* grateful you did.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" 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/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
