On 11/15/06, iain duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since I started to use TurboGears some 6 months ago I have developed 2 > > fairly large and one small projects with it. However I'm thinking that > > for my next project I'll just use CherryPy directly, TG is a bit too > > high level for my needs. > > Though a little off topic, I'm interested in knowing at what point gears > feels too high level, and which components make that the case. Would it > be the ORM or do you find you need more architectural flexibility?
Sorry for the late response. Others have mention most of the points that lead to my statement. The fact of the matter is, as I have said here before: * I use SQLAlchemy, so so model designer, catwalk and all the crud-magic widgets are of no use. * I use routes, in effect I short circuit the normal dispatching. * I dislike the explicit turbogears.database.session, for my last project I kept the identity related model in sqlalchemy and used a completely seperate model for my business logic. * I needed more from the identity framework so I had to write my own identity controller. * I don't use widgets, they mostly just don't apply to my projects so far. * I don't like the std. @expose decorator in turbogears since it wraps the function making it unusable from regular Python code, this was partially solved with writing my own dispatch logic. CherryPy 3 is looking very good imo, currently I'm leaning more towards that rather than Pylons. I also like the asynchronous methodology of Twisted, esp. if one needs long-running requests as in Comet. Arnar --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
