Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM, James Bennettwrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> A wiki page doesn't really solve the problem either. If you make it an >> exclusive list, someone has to decide who is on the list and who >> isn't. If you make it a comprehensive list, a wiki page will very >> rapidly become unusable due to the volume of reusable apps out there - >> wiki format doesn't provide a lot of creative options for >> indexing/organizing content on multiple axes. > > It seems to me that there's already a site out there which indexes and > organizes on multiple axes: > > http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse=523 > > or just lists Django stuff: > > http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse=all=523 > > (several of my comments on proposed contrib additions for 1.2 pointed > this out -- we already have the infrastructure, now let's encourage > people to use it) I agree that PyPI solves *part* of the problem - in particular, the automated installation aspects of the problem. However, IMHO PyPI really blows as a resource discovery tool - because the axes it provides and indexes aren't really useful axes for the problem that needs solving. A use-case driven example: I am a new user to Django. I am building a website that will require a member signup process. Is there a Django app that will help me with this? "django member signup" returns (as far as I can make out) every single PyPI registration that mentions "django". This is not a good starting point. If you're willing to filter through hundred of results to find the nuggets of goodness, you will discover (in this order) django-invitation, django-social-registration, django-account, django-invite, and django-registration. There may be other packages that are appropriate, but the search results don't provide any easy way to filter these out. The search results also include entries that are Zope and Plone specific. Which one of these projects should I look at first? Which ones do the community consider to be good applications? I don't think it's too controversial to say that there would be a reasonable consensus that django-registration is a pretty good example of a Django reusable app, but it's the last result in list. The other candidates may also be good, but if a new user came to me and asked this question, I know I would be pointing them at django-registration first. So - PyPI provides an excellent machine-readable index for PIP to use, but it is missing two important features for it to be useful as a community tool: * No web application specific metadata in the trove classifiers * No social contribution to help filter the wheat from the chaff As allegorical evidence in support of my claims - I can't remember the last time I used PyPI as a search tool to find a Python package (I'm not talking Django-specific, either - I mean Python packages in general). It's great resource for pip to use, but awful for people IMHO. The trove classifiers are a particular problem, IMHO. They are a static list that borders on comical in their scope. Trove provides a classifier to say that your project is compatible with GNU Hurd, but doesn't provide classifiers that are useful in a web context, like "member signup", "voting", "tagging", or "caching". It provides a classifier for "SCCS" and "RCS", but not for "Mercurial" or "git". Trove lets you easily find a list of 306 Django packages, but provides very little help to narrow the search any further based on the task you want to perform - and as far as I can make out, you can't do a search inside a trove classifier. Related to this - there is no synonym suggestion around these trove classifiers. Is it "member signup" or "member registration" or just "registration"? To be sure - this isn't an easy problem to solve, but as far as I can make out PyPI make no attempt to solve it at all. One solution here might be to work with the Python core guys to improve PyPI. The other solution is to build a Django-specific social layer that leverages the machine-readable data in PyPI, but provides the extra features that PyPI is missing. I'm open to either option, but my gut feeling is that the latter will be much easier to execute, if only because we won't have to deal with: 1) Wrangling a community much larger than our own 2) Fighting "No, can't let Django control the agenda" Python community angst 3) Trying to satisfy use cases that are of no importance to Django, but might be important to other communities. I would also note that I'm also not entirely convinced that it is right for PyPI to evolve beyond being a simple machine-readable index. I strongly suspect the social needs of the Django community will be quite different to those in the Pylons or Zope communities - or those in NLP, bioinformatics, or any other domains where Python is used. A caching tool that is a good match for Django may not be a good match for
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Russell Keith-Mageewrote: > A wiki page doesn't really solve the problem either. If you make it an > exclusive list, someone has to decide who is on the list and who > isn't. If you make it a comprehensive list, a wiki page will very > rapidly become unusable due to the volume of reusable apps out there - > wiki format doesn't provide a lot of creative options for > indexing/organizing content on multiple axes. It seems to me that there's already a site out there which indexes and organizes on multiple axes: http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse=523 or just lists Django stuff: http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse=all=523 (several of my comments on proposed contrib additions for 1.2 pointed this out -- we already have the infrastructure, now let's encourage people to use it) -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Russell Keith-Magee < freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A wiki page doesn't really solve the problem either. If you make it an > exclusive list, someone has to decide who is on the list and who > isn't. If you make it a comprehensive list, a wiki page will very > rapidly become unusable due to the volume of reusable apps out there - > wiki format doesn't provide a lot of creative options for > indexing/organizing content on multiple axes. That's a good point. You really do need a better way to manage a list of that size. A wiki page is better used for less dynamic lists and information. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Tobias McNultywrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Dan wrote: >> >> I didn't know about rosetta. What would you guys think of having a doc >> section about popular third party apps? Putting a list of applications really isn't the right solution - for one thing, the list of available applications changes much faster than Django does. Secondly, the core team doesn't want to get into the business of officially blessing certain applications. A wiki page doesn't really solve the problem either. If you make it an exclusive list, someone has to decide who is on the list and who isn't. If you make it a comprehensive list, a wiki page will very rapidly become unusable due to the volume of reusable apps out there - wiki format doesn't provide a lot of creative options for indexing/organizing content on multiple axes. > I think this is best done through a third party site. Look at the success > of DjangoGigs. I don't know that there's a de facto place to look for apps > yet, but I bet a winner will emerge in time. I agree - and for those that aren't aware of the options out there, I'm aware of at least 3 sites that already do this: http://djangozen.com/ http://djangoworld.com/ http://django-apps.com/ Once upon a time http://djangopluggables.com/ would have been on this list too. However, that site has been down for a couple of months now, and nobody seems to know what happened to it. One of the topics of discussion at DjangoCon was a discussion of what (if anything) the DSF could do to assist with community resources such as these. So - watch this space for developments, but in the meantime, try out the options that already exist, and if you aren't happy with any of them, try to make something better - or better yet, offer to help make one of the existing candidates better. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Danwrote: > I think this is best done through a third party site. Look at the success >> of DjangoGigs. I don't know that there's a de facto place to look for apps >> yet, but I bet a winner will emerge in time. >> >> Tobias >> >> > The problem I see with that is that we clearly *are* standardizing toward > some third parties apps. Not strongly enough to commit them to contrib with > all the duties it implies but still! I don't think the doc is doing enough > to let newcomers have the best tools available for their Django development. > > Or maybe we can go the Wiki route and display on the front page "ORM, > cache, elegant URLs, ..., plenty of third party apps [link to a wiki page]". > > That way, there would be very little burden for the core devs and page > would evolve as the different tools emerge. I think a Wiki page would be the best way to handle this. I agree that there is a need to more actively advertise some of the more popular third party apps for new comers but those apps don't follow our dev cycle, so having them in our docs doesn't seem to make sense. Josh --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
> > I think this is best done through a third party site. Look at the success > of DjangoGigs. I don't know that there's a de facto place to look for apps > yet, but I bet a winner will emerge in time. > > Tobias > > The problem I see with that is that we clearly *are* standardizing toward some third parties apps. Not strongly enough to commit them to contrib with all the duties it implies but still! I don't think the doc is doing enough to let newcomers have the best tools available for their Django development. Or maybe we can go the Wiki route and display on the front page "ORM, cache, elegant URLs, ..., plenty of third party apps [link to a wiki page]". That way, there would be very little burden for the core devs and page would evolve as the different tools emerge. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Danwrote: > > I didn't know about rosetta. What would you guys think of having a doc > section about popular third party apps? I think this is best done through a third party site. Look at the success of DjangoGigs. I don't know that there's a de facto place to look for apps yet, but I bet a winner will emerge in time. Tobias -- Tobias McNulty Caktus Consulting Group, LLC P.O. Box 1454 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 951-0052 http://www.caktusgroup.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
> A few things: > > a) The feature proposal phase has already passed, it went on for the > last 3 months or so. > b) There's already an external application that does this: > http://code.google.com/p/django-rosetta/ > > Alex > > I didn't know about rosetta. What would you guys think of having a doc section about popular third party apps? I found many must-have Django tools like the debug toolbar, south and command extension because I follow blogs and read the mailing list but I feel the Django documentation should help newcomers find those things. I don't mean Django should document third parties stuff but there should be an easy to find section in the doc with links (and appropriate disclaimers obviously). Should I file a ticket for it? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 6:50 PM, veenawrote: > > Does the commentators have experience with maintaining the i18n django > project? I do and completely agree with Jonas. > "Gettext like+Rosetta like" but database driven translation app in > Django adminwithout translation-makemessages-compilemessages-restart > apache would be helpful. Import from the gettext file (managed by your > standard tool) to db could be also provided. > > Vaclav > > > > On Oct 23, 6:13 pm, Simon Willison wrote: >> On Oct 23, 3:30 pm, Jonas Obrist wrote: >> >> > Oh... Well than consider this a 1.X suggestion. I've tried Rosetta >> > however it just doesn't seem to work Also I don't really like to use >> > 3rd Party apps for what I'd consider core functionality. I mean django >> > boasts with having excellent i18n capabilities, but when it comes to >> > actually translating stuff it just refers to a 3rd party app >> >> My understanding is that translation tools are actually quite a >> controversial issue within the translation community. Most translators >> work on more than just one piece of software - they might help out >> translating Django, Firefox, Emacs and a bunch of other stuff. As >> such, they generally have their own standard tool that they work >> within for managing all of their translation activity. A Django- >> specific tool wouldn't actually help them at all, since they wouldn't >> be able to use it for the other translation work that they do. >> >> As such, I don't think a single translation management tool should >> ever be shipped as part of Django. It's too sticky a problem, and >> hence is definitely best addressed by third party modules such as >> Rosetta. > > > I can't comment on the other people's work with i18n, but I've been doing updates the Hebrew translations for the past couple of releases. I'm not sure what perspective people have, but as a developer doing translations, needing to load up the CLI to make/compile messages doesn't bother me, I'm going to need my CLI for doing the final diff anyway. IMO if you need a full web translation system you should be looking at something like Transifex[0], which is clearly out of scope for Django itself. Alex 0: http://www.transifex.net/ -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero "Code can always be simpler than you think, but never as simple as you want" -- Me --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
Does the commentators have experience with maintaining the i18n django project? I do and completely agree with Jonas. "Gettext like+Rosetta like" but database driven translation app in Django adminwithout translation-makemessages-compilemessages-restart apache would be helpful. Import from the gettext file (managed by your standard tool) to db could be also provided. Vaclav On Oct 23, 6:13 pm, Simon Willisonwrote: > On Oct 23, 3:30 pm, Jonas Obrist wrote: > > > Oh... Well than consider this a 1.X suggestion. I've tried Rosetta > > however it just doesn't seem to work Also I don't really like to use > > 3rd Party apps for what I'd consider core functionality. I mean django > > boasts with having excellent i18n capabilities, but when it comes to > > actually translating stuff it just refers to a 3rd party app > > My understanding is that translation tools are actually quite a > controversial issue within the translation community. Most translators > work on more than just one piece of software - they might help out > translating Django, Firefox, Emacs and a bunch of other stuff. As > such, they generally have their own standard tool that they work > within for managing all of their translation activity. A Django- > specific tool wouldn't actually help them at all, since they wouldn't > be able to use it for the other translation work that they do. > > As such, I don't think a single translation management tool should > ever be shipped as part of Django. It's too sticky a problem, and > hence is definitely best addressed by third party modules such as > Rosetta. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 16:30 +0200, Jonas Obrist wrote: > Oh... Well than consider this a 1.X suggestion. I've tried Rosetta > however it just doesn't seem to work Also I don't really like to use > 3rd Party apps for what I'd consider core functionality. I mean django > boasts with having excellent i18n capabilities, but when it comes to > actually translating stuff it just refers to a 3rd party app > Django's i18n use gettext, which is about as standard as you will ever get. There are any number of real applications for maintaining and updating po files, and django-rosetta is is also pretty good. IMO I wouldn't see this as anything like core. Cheers Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
Oh... Well than consider this a 1.X suggestion. I've tried Rosetta however it just doesn't seem to work Also I don't really like to use 3rd Party apps for what I'd consider core functionality. I mean django boasts with having excellent i18n capabilities, but when it comes to actually translating stuff it just refers to a 3rd party app --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: 1.2 Feature Suggestion
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Jonas Obristwrote: > > How about making i18n strings translatable from the django admin site? > I like how the whole i18n thingy is built from a template perspective, > however getting the stuff actually translated (all those django-admin.py > commands ...) is a pain and confusing. So why not integrate this into > the amazing admin site and make it even better? > > > > A few things: a) The feature proposal phase has already passed, it went on for the last 3 months or so. b) There's already an external application that does this: http://code.google.com/p/django-rosetta/ Alex -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire "The people's good is the highest law." -- Cicero "Code can always be simpler than you think, but never as simple as you want" -- Me --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---