On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Wyatt Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 9:20 am, Colin Flanagan <[email protected]> wrote: >> The SQLAlchemy argument is a very compelling one. I have an application >> that, while being a CMS, has heavily relational data. I was urged by >> different people to do it either in Django or Plone, but went with Pylons. >> My domain objects are far easier to work with, though I did suffer from the >> authentication layer and a few other things I had to build from scratch. >> >> Django can use SQLAlchemy, but by doing so you pretty much nullify a lot of >> the things that are unique to that framework like their "automatic admin >> interfaces." Django's object generation came nowhere near understanding my >> moderately-complicated data model and would have been much more difficult to >> develop with, as compared to Pylons with SQLAlchemy. >> >> On another note: >> I find it interesting that a lot of people recommend Django for CMS-type >> applications. I would think that Plone might be more far more suitable >> given that: >> 1. your data fits well with the hierarchical structure of the ZODB >> 2. your content is comparable to the content types already established in >> Plone >> 3. you don't have any legacy data or need to integrate with other systems >> 4. you don't need to do lots of custom UI/presentation layer work > > I'm no Plone expert, but I don't think #4 is a problem for Plone. I > think there are actually quite a few Plone sites with custom UIs (my > company's new Intranet being one of them).
Plone is certainly very complete. Its main problem is its Zope 2 legacy, which many people see as baggage. But if you ignore that, it's got many many things a content-based site needs. Pylons is clearly better for a calculation-based site with a lot of little pieces of data, although of course you can build any site in either. Django is in between, with some CMS-handy features built in, yet also capable of running a calculation-based site, but is perhaps not as attuned to it as Pylons is. > PS If anyone needs an SA type def for PostGIS geometry columns, give > me a shout. I have one version based on PCL and another on Shapely. I don't know this, but there are open-source GIS groups who probably do. http://groups.google.com/group/cugos -- 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
