I've learnt some basic in Django.. and there is lots of Django reusable apps available for use.
But how about Pylons? Where to download Pylons reusable apps?
OK, I'll bite. There are at least 2 ways I can think of to answer this question.
1: there aren't reusable apps for pylons. In the same sense as what you are thinking for django. I'll assume you mean something like pinax. in which the clear answer is no as far as you would be concerned.
or
2: in pylons, a request can be routed to any wsgi application, you can do so in your paste config via url map(not a pylons feature but a paste feature), or using the wsgi app as a controller or within a controller. So in this sense, any wsgi application (pdf) is a reusable app. And of course there's plenty of wsgi middleware out there to reuse.
But if you are coming from django and expecting to get the same kind of out of the box treatment that you are used to, pylons is going to disappoint you as if you purchased a blowtorch with the expectation that it would get you to the airport. wrong tool for the job.
You may want to look at turbogears which is built on top of pylons and has more out of the box things for you to use.
Related
I've been using Ruby on Rails since a little more than one year now and I've always do it in a casual way, I mean, everything in one place (front & back), using the standard .html.erb file populated by the associated controller method.
Otherwise, today in our project, I have the need to separate the front and the back end for multiples reasons (code maintainability / clarity, better architecture, more reactivity, etc...).
I've done plenty of researches, watch some conferences (1, 2, 3), but didn't find my solution yet. It looks like to be a question that comes often, but what is the best practice/tools to separate the backend and the frontend of a Ruby on Rails app?
I don't feel we need (yet) a huge JS framework like React/EmberJS/Angular/etc...
First I was thinking about something like Middleman/Jekyll and make the communication via JSON and API calls, but it seems like that it's not a good solution for dynamic website.
So is there a frontend framework that works well with a Rails API and which is easily maintainable and upgradable (add feature/extension to it like gems)?
Thanks for your insights.
A friend of mine wrote this great article/tutorial on Rails as a backend API.
http://blog.launchacademy.com/the-basics-of-building-an-api-in-ruby-on-rails/
As well as this tutorial on Rails/Ember.js
https://github.com/diegodesouza/Project-Planner-EmberJS
You can get an idea of how it's done and implement your preferred front end framework.
Hope it sheds some light on this question.
I have a similar setup as one of the commenters on the question.
I'm using Rails mainly for just the project structure, to define some page layouts, and for ActiveRecord.
I then have my JSON APIs defined using the Grape API framework.
I have a SPA, written on AngularJS that lives in the public/ folder. It doubles as my mobile app, made possible by phonegap. If my Angular app didn't double as my mobile app, I could've possibly just used the asset pipeline to serve up the SPA. To compensate for that, I have a separate build task written in Grunt to minify/uglify my JS/CSS assets before I deploy them out to production.
I also use Comfortable Mexican Sofa for my static content pages.
It took some trial and error to get things right, but overall I find that this setup serves me pretty well.
We are planning to make a "large" website for I'd say 5000 up to many more users. We think of putting in lots of real time functionality, where data changes instantly propagate to all connected clients. New frameworks like Meteor and DerbyJS look really promising for this kind of stuff.
Now, I wonder if it is possible to do typical backend stuff like sending (bulk) emails, cleaning up the database, generating pdfs, etc. with those new frameworks. And in a way that is productive and doesn't suck. I also wonder how difficult it is to create complex forms with them. I got used to the convenient Rails view helpers and Ruby gems to handle those kind of things.
Meteor and DerbyJS are both quite new, so I do expect lots of functionality will be added in the near future. However, I also wonder if it might be a good idea to combine those frameworks with a "traditional" Rails app, that serves up certain complex pages which do not need realtime updates. And/or with a Rails or Sinatra app that provides an API to do the heavy backend processing. Those Rails apps could then access the same databases then the Meteor/DerbyJS app. Anyone thinks this is a good idea? Or rather not? Why?
It would be nice if anyone with sufficient experience with those new "single page app realtime" frameworks could comment on this. Where are they heading towards? Will they be able to handle "complete" web apps with authentication and backend processing? Will it be as productive/convenient to program with them as with Rails? Well, I guess no one can know that for sure yet ;-) Well, any thoughts, guesses and ideas are welcome!
For things like sending bulk emails and generating PDFs, Derby let's you simply use normal Node.js modules. npm now has over 10,000 packages, so there are packages for most things you might want to do on the server. Derby doesn't control your server, and it works on top of any normal Express server. You should probably stick with Node.js code as much as possible and not use Rails along with Derby. That is not to say that you can't send messages to a separate Rails app, but since you already have to have a Node.js app running to host Derby, you might as well use it for stuff like this.
To communicate with such server-side code, you can use Derby's model events. We are still exploring how this kind of code works and we don't have a lot of examples, but it is something that we will have a clear story around. We are building an app ourselves that communicates with an email server, so we should have some real experience with this pretty soon.
You can also just use a normal AJAX request or send a message over Socket.IO manually if you don't want to use the Derby model to do this kind of communication. You are free to make your own server-side only routes with Express along with your Derby app routes. We think it is nice to have this kind of flexibility in case there are any use cases that we didn't properly anticipate with the framework.
As far as creating forms goes, Derby has a very powerful templating system, and I am working on making it a lot better still. We are working on a new UI components feature that will make it possible to build libraries of self-contained UI widgets that can simply be dropped into a Derby app while still playing nicely with automatic view-model bindings and data syncing. Once this feature is completed, I think form component libraries will be written rather quickly.
We do expect to include all of the features needed for a normal app, much like Rails does. It won't look like Rails or work like Rails, but it will be similarly feature complete eventually.
For backend tasks (such as sending emails, cleaning up the database, generating pdfs) it's better to use resque or sidekiq
Now, I wonder if it is possible to do typical backend stuff like
sending (bulk) emails, cleaning up the database, generating pdfs, etc.
with those new frameworks. And in a way that is productive and doesn't
suck. I also wonder how difficult it is to create complex forms with
them. I got used to the convenient Rails view helpers and Ruby gems to
handle those kind of things.
Also, my question is not only about background jobs, but also about stuff one can might do during a request, like generating a pdf, or simply rendering complex views with rails helpers or code from gems. –
You're mixing metaphors here - a single page app is just a site where the content is loaded without doing a full page reload, be that a front end in pure js or you could use normal html and pjax.
The kind of things you are describing would be done in a background task regardless of the fornt-end framework you used. But +1 for sidekiq if you're using ruby.
As for notifying all the other users of things that have changed, you can look into using http://pusher.com or http://pubnub.com if you don't want to maintain a websocket server.
I'm going to be collaborating with a Python developer on a web
application. I'm going to be building a part of it in Ruby and he is
going to build another part of it using Django. I don't know much about
Django.
My plan for integrating the two parts is to simply map a certain URL
path prefix (say, any request that begins with /services) to the Python
code, while leaving Rails to process other requests.
The Python and Ruby parts of the app will share and make updates to the
same MySQL datastore.
My questions:
What do people think generally of this sort of integration strategy?
Is there a better alternative (short of writing it all in one language)?
What's the best way to share sensitive session data (i.e. a logged in
user's id) across the two parts of the app?
As I see it you can't use Django's auth, you can't use Django's ORM, you can't use Django's admin, you can't use Django's sessions - all you are left with is URL mapping to views and the template system. I'd not use Django, but a simpler Python framework. Time your Python programmer expanded his world...
One possible way that should be pretty clean is to decide which one of the apps is the "main" one and have the other one communicate with it over a well-defined API, rather than directly interacting with the underlying database.
If you're doing it right, you're already building your Rails application with a RESTful API. The Django app could act as a REST client to it.
I'm sure it could work the other way around too (with the rest-client gem, for instance).
That way, things like validations and other core business logic are enforced in one place, rather than two.
A project, product, whatever you call it, needs a leader.
This is the first proof that you don't have one. Someone should decide either you're doing ruby or python. I prefer ruby myself, but I understand those who prefer python.
I think starting a product asking yourself those kind of questions is a BAD start.
If your colleague only knows prototype, and you only know JQuery, are you going to mix the technologies too? Same for DB? And for testing frameworks?
This is a never ending arguing subject. One should decide, IMHO, if you want so;ething good to happen. I work with a lot of teams, as a consultant, Agile teams, very mature teams for some of them, and that's the kind of stuff they avoid at all cost.
Except if one of you is going to work on some specific part of the project, which REALLY needs one or other of the technologies, but still think the other one is best for the rest of the application.
I think, for example, at a batch computing. You have ALL your web app in ror or django, and you have a script, called by CRON or whatever, computing huge amounts of data outside the web app, filling a DB or whatever.
My2Cts.
This is a bit of a weird meta-programming question, but I've realized that my new project doesn't need a full MVC framework, and being a rails guy, I'm not sure what to use now.
To give you a gist of the necessary functionality; this website will display static pages, but users will be able to log in and 'edit their current plans'. All purchasing and credit card editing is being handled by a recurring payment subscriber, I just need a page to edit their current plan. All of that will be done through (dynamic) XML API calls, so no database is necessary.
Should I stick with my typical rails/nginx stack, or is there something I could use that would lighten the load, since I don't need the Rails heft. I'm familiar with python and PHP but would prefer not to go that route. Is Sinatra a good choice here?
tl;dr: What's a good way to quickly serve mostly static pages, preferably in Ruby, with some pages requiring dynamic XML rendering?
If you want to stick with Ruby, Sinatra would be fine, as would Rails Metal.
If you're feeling a bit adventurous and want to get some useful experience with the technology that rails uses you could try building a Rack application. It's a pretty simple API to be able to respond to generic HTTP queries, and from there you can quickly build static file handling and XML processing. It's also considerably faster to start up and serve pages than rails.
http://github.com/cloudhead/toto is an example of a decent Rack based application.
If you know Rails, then why not just stick with it? That way you can use all authentication features, etc. that you're used to without having to learn another platform and incur the implementation risks that that includes. If the application ever grows beyond what's expected you're already on a solid base.
I'm a student of web development (and college), so my apologies if this comes off sounding naive and offensive, I certainly don't mean it that way. My experience has been with PHP and with a smallish project on the horizon (a glorified shift calendar) I hoped to learn one of the higher level frameworks to ease the code burden. So far, I looked at CakePHP Symfony Django and Rails.
With PHP, the URLs mapped very simply to the files, and it "just worked". It was quick for the server, and intuitive. But with all of these frameworks, there is this inclination to "pretty up" the URLs by making them map to different functions and route the parameters to different variables in different files.
"The Rails Way" book that I'm reading admits that this is dog slow and is the cause of most performance pains on largish projects. My question is "why have it in the first place?"? Is there a specific point in the url-maps-to-a-file paradigm (or mod_rewrite to a single file) that necessitates regexes and complicated routing schemes? Am I missing out on something by not using them?
Thanks in advance!
URLs should be easy to remember and say. And the user should know what to expect when she see that URL. Mapping URL directly to file doesn't always allow that.
You might want to use diffrent URLs for the same, or at least similar, information displayed. If your server forces you to use 1 url <-> 1 file mapping, you need to create additional files with all their function being to redirect to other file. Or you use stuff like mod_rewrite which isn't easier then Rails' url mappings.
In one of my applications I use URL that looks like http://www.example.com/username/some additional stuff/. This can be also made with mod_rewrite, but at least for me it's easier to configure urls in django project then in every apache instance I run application at.
just my 2 cents...
Most of it has already been covered, but nobody has mentioned SEO yet. Google puts alot of weight on the URL itself, if that url is widgets.com/browse.php?17, that is not very SEO friendly. If your URL is widgets.com/products/buttons/ that will have a positive impact on your page rank for buttons
Storing application code in the document tree of the web server is a security concern.
a misconfiguration might accidentally reveal source code to visitors
files injected through a security vulnerability are immediately executable by HTTP requests
backup files (created e.g. by text editors) may reveal code or be executable in case of misconfiguration
old files which the administrator has failed to delete can reveal unintended functionality
requests to library files must be explicitly denied
URLs reveal implementation details (which language/framework was used)
Note that all of the above are not a problem as long as other things don't go wrong (and some of these mistakes would be serious even alone). But something always goes wrong, and extra lines of defense are good to have.
Django URLs are also very customizable. With PHP frameworks like Code Igniter (I'm not sure about Rails) your forced into the /class/method/extra/ URL structure. While this may be good for small projects and apps, as soon as you try and make it larger/more dynamic you run into problems and have to rewrite some of the framework code to handle it.
Also, routers are like mod_rewrite, but much more flexible. They are not regular expression-bound, and thus, have more options for different types of routes.
Depends on how big your application is. We've got a fairly large app (50+ models) and it isn't causing us any problems. When it does, we'll worry about it then.