Michele Simionato a écrit : > On Oct 6, 9:13 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> - 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. > > Well, url_for is convenient, I would not deny it. Still it is > not compelling to me.
To me, yes - but the context probably makes some difference here. Anyway, even for apps I developped with older versions of Django or for Trac plugins, I missed this feature. I like being able to reorganize my url space, and having urls knowldege all over is very bad IMHO. While perhaps not the ultimate solution (is there one), routes does a good job with this IMHO. (snip) >> - 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. > > I have wanted to do a serious test of SQLAlchemy for a > couple of years, but never found the time :-( Then rejoice : you'll have a better package to test, with better documentation !-) > Do you (or something else) have something to say about Beaker? Sorry, not so far. As I mentionned, I had to delay serious work with Pylons so far. > I looked at the source code and it seems fine to me, but I have > not used it directly, not stressed it. I need a > production-level WSGI session middleware and I wonder what the > players are (for instance how Beaker does compare with flup?) Can't tell, but I'd trust the Pylons team on this kind of choices. They're doing good job so far AFAICT. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
