py web-app-frameworks without a rdbms...

[venkatbo]

Hi folks,

Of TurboGers & Django WAF candidates, which one would be easier to use
in an environment where the data/content doesn't come an RDBMS, but
from other server-side apps... If these are not good candidates, could
you suggest appropriate ones...

TIA,
/venkat

 

[limodou]

Hi folks,

Of TurboGers & Django WAF candidates, which one would be easier to use
in an environment where the data/content doesn't come an RDBMS, but
from other server-side apps... If these are not good candidates, could
you suggest appropriate ones...

TIA,
/venkat

If you don't want to use RDBMS, I think Karrigell is better. Many
features of Django and TurboGears relate to database.

 

[CatDude]

If you don't want to use RDBMS, I think Karrigell is better. Many

features of Django and TurboGears relate to database.

I've just begun looking at it, but I've also been impressed with Myghty.

 

[Anand]

Try web.py. Very simple and powerful web framework.

http://webpy.org


-anand

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

Of TurboGers & Django WAF candidates, which one would be easier to use
in an environment where the data/content doesn't come an RDBMS, but
from other server-side apps...

Django is trivial to use for this (but you still want to use a DB together
with the built-in admin interface for basic configuration stuff; sqlite may
be good enough...)

I haven't used TG myself, but it's probably just as easy.

just pick a stable release of either one and get to work.

</F>

 

[bruno at modulix]

Hi folks,

Of TurboGers & Django WAF candidates, which one would be easier to use
in an environment where the data/content doesn't come an RDBMS, but
from other server-side apps...

IMHO, both.

If these are not good candidates, could
you suggest appropriate ones...

Well... There are *many* web frameworks in Python, you know ?

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

I am relatively new to Python and this is my first post on
this mailing list.

I am confused as to why I am getting size differences in the following
cases:

6

Why is it 8 bytes in the third case and why would it be only 6 bytes
in the last case if it is 8 in the previous?

because modern platforms tend to use an alignment equal to the size of
the item; 2-byte objects are stored at even addresses, 4-byte objects
are stored at addresses that are multiples of four, etc.

in other words, HI is stored as 2 bytes H data plus 2 bytes padding plus
four bytes I data, while IH is four bytes I data, no padding, and 2 bytes
H data.

I tried specifying big endian and little endian and they both have
the same results.

are you sure? (see below)

I suspect, there is some kind of padding involved, but it does not
seem to be done consistently or in a recognizable method.

the alignment options are described in the library reference:

http://docs.python.org/lib/module-struct.html

default is native byte order, native padding:
8

to specify other byte orders, use a prefix character. this also disables
padding. e.g.
6

</F>

 

[Michael Goettsche]

Hi folks,

Of TurboGers & Django WAF candidates, which one would be easier to use
in an environment where the data/content doesn't come an RDBMS, but
from other server-side apps... If these are not good candidates, could
you suggest appropriate ones...

TIA,
/venkat

Be sure to have a look at CherryPy: http://www.cherrypy.org

Michael.