Yet another comparison of Python Web Frameworks

Michele Simionato michele.simionato at gmail.com
Sat Oct 6 15:29:41 CEST 2007


On Oct 6, 9:13 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.
42.desthuilli... at wtf.websiteburo.oops.com> 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.

> - 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.

I have wanted to do a serious test of SQLAlchemy for a
couple of years, but never found the time :-(

Do you (or something else) have something to say about Beaker?
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?)

     Michele Simionato




More information about the Python-list mailing list