Michele Simionato a écrit : > At work we are shopping for a Web framework, so I have been looking at > the available options > on the current market. In particular I have looked at Paste and Pylons > and I have written my > impressions here: > > http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles/python/yet-another-comparison-of-web-frameworks.html > > I do not speak too well of Pylons, so if you thing I am wrong feel > free to correct me here ;) >
Well... Last year, I had a look at Pylons, then played a bit with wsgi and building my own framework over it. I finally dropped that code and went back to Pylons, which I felt could become far better than my own efforts. Now since then I had way too much to do at work (using other technos) and didn't find the time to work on my own projects, so I still don't know how well Pylons will pass the "real world" test, but it seems to me that it's rapidly progressing and mostly in the right direction. I still wait for an opportunity to check this out !-) While we're at it: - talking about routes, you say: """ I have no Ruby On Rails background, so I don't see the advantages of routes. """ I don't have any RoR neither, but as far as I'm concerned, one of the big points with routes is url_for(), that avoids having too much hard-coded urls. - about FormEncode : that's a package I've used before without Pylons, and while it has a few dark corners, it's mostly doing TheRightThing for most current validation/conversion tasks. I'll still use it with or without Pylons - about SQLAlchemy : here again, I used this package prior any experience with Pylons. FWIW, I used it in the most basic, 'low-level' way, ie without any ORM stuff, and I found it to be a pretty good alternative to db-api. It's a bit complex, but powerful, and having the possibility to handle sql requests as Python objects (instead of raw strings) really helps. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
