On Mar 13, 4:54 am, Seth wrote:
> I was advised a while back by someone to throw my MongoDB connection call
> into a pyramid.events.NewRequest subscriber. However, this has proven to be
> a bad idea because the NewRequest subscriber gets called even if the request
> is a static_route request, and
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> looking at the source, I see:
>
> * pyramid/chamelon_text.py
> * pyramid/chamelon_zpt.py
> * pyramid/mako_templating.py
>
> was there any reason for these being on the top-level, and not under a
> consolidated namespace like pyramid/templa
It's dead in that no one is currently using or maintaining it. It was a
fun hack, but I never really found much use for it myself. I don't
remember super well, but I think it starts to show its rough edges with
complex schemas with many nested layers, but is really slick for simple,
shallow schem
I had not seen schematics before. The information on the pypi page does
look promising. And active is good. The only reason you might consider
limone at this point, I would think, is if you want to continue using your
Colander schemas instead of writing new schematics models. Conversion is
prob
I use nginx+waitress in production. Except once in a blue moon I've used
gunicorn for something with long persistent connections. (Streaming music
server, anything that uses socket.io, etc...)
Chris
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Bastian Kuberek wrote:
> Like others, I do also deploy produc
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Mike Orr wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> > (I have to say that document surprised me -- pleasantly -- due to your
> > dedication for user support. Python 2.4, even!)
>
> 2.4 and 2.5 combatibility will impede the switch to Python
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 11/11/10 12:38 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/10 12:05 , Mike Orr wrote:
>>
>>> Since HTML is all about hyperlinks, it makes sense to give them
>>> special treatment, especially if you're trying to encourage people to
>>> alwa
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 11/11/10 13:48 , Chris Rossi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Wichert Akkerman > <mailto:wich...@wiggy.net>> wrote:
>>
>>On 11/11/10 12:38 , Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, reed wrote:
>
> I am not adverse to renaming, but I think it needs to be definitive
> and concise enough to prevent more questions from arising than it
> would solve. I don't think 'resource' meets those criteria.
>
> I tend to agree with this. I'll try to brains
Sold. +1
Chris
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Mark Ramm wrote:
> So, I will confess to being the one who asked for this change, and
> while I'm definitely open to other options, I think resource is a good
> term for items in the graph. The graph itself I'm not sure what to
> call, but I thi
10 matches
Mail list logo
