On 4 déc, 18:46, Todd Blanchard <tblanch...@mac.com> wrote: > First, thanks for the critiques - I'm not surprised there are better ways to > write this as I'm just learning python.
Thanks _you_ for taking the critiques as they were intented !-) > Second, url mapping for me is trivial. Its a web app, not a web site. I > would be fairly happy with totally opaque urls ala seaside as long as I > didn't have to think about them. Ok, so in this context your solution makes more sense. Still, your route-like solution - possibly including the use of a "controller" class as context - could be improved on some points IMHO. We can discuss this elsewhere if you want. > But url mapping isn't enough of a factor to make me choose pylons. I chose > django because of the availability of geodjango, olwidigte, the admin, auth > framework, and a number of other goodies. I don't get those with pylons. Indeed. > So, no, I would not be happier with pylons. I'm happy here with this > modification, thanks. So welcome onboard !-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
