Must-have Django packages • Hacker News Board

Re: Must-have Django packages

#91

Post by ericd » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:04 AM UTC

huxley wrote: post #88

ericd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a greenfield app, would you recommend starting with 1.7, or do you think it will be simple enough to convert from South that it's not worth it? (I have no idea how stable 1.7 is)

Andrew has said in the past that his intent is to provide a migration path from classic South to "South 2.0" which will backport migrations to earlier versions of Django (versions 1.4-1.6, I believe) and also build on top of the migration infrastructure in Django 1.7. You should be fine sticking with South for now.

Cool, thanks very much to you and the other commenter.

Re: Must-have Django packages

#92

Post by msonawane » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:10 AM UTC

TheMakeA wrote: post #17

What are people using these days for compiling their static assets (js minification + concatenation, etc)? We have been using django-pipeline but it has been a nightmare.

nginx + pagespeed should be better way of doing it

Re: Must-have Django packages

#93

Post by thatthatis » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:19 AM UTC

dkoch wrote: post #13

I've found django-allauth a bit friendlier than django-social-auth, and it covers registration of local accounts in one package.

https://github.com/omab/psa-allauth looks like it might have the best of both worlds.

Re: Must-have Django packages

#94

Post by oinksoft » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:20 AM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #90

oinksoft wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought he might have meant that, but I never had too much difficulty doing this through the Django template API.

It's not bad, but the Jinja2 language is more expressive, and the API is a bit better. Not enough we would migrate away from Django templates to it, but enough to not migrate away from Jinja.

Fair enough, I tend to use something very restrictive like Django templates (I made/use an Erlang port of the language as well: https://github.com/oinksoft/dtl) or something very flexible like Mako if I have the choice and need it.

Re: Must-have Django packages

#95

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 3:21 AM UTC

waterlion wrote: post #15

"Django REST framework is an insane framework" I'm fed up with this kind of oppressive language. This is heteronormative and is discriminatory to the mentally ill. It's stuff like this that leads to the imbalance and under-representation in the industry. Let's boycott this author. (I would love not to have to write " " but having seen some of the comments here, I think I need to. I wonder how many white-knights-for-w…

[deleted]

Re: Must-have Django packages

#96

Post by gojomo » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 4:09 AM UTC

natmaster wrote: post #80

waterlion wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you square that with the article? It specifically says that that Django REST is "insane".

The word insane does not appear on the page

It previously appeared, with regard to DRF, where the word 'excellent' does now.

Re: Must-have Django packages

#97

Post by JensRantil » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 9:01 AM UTC

sdfjkl wrote: post #47

Amusingly, my must-have Django packages are mostly things that replace large chunks of Django (Jinja2 for templates, a DB connector/ORM for whatever database the project needs, which even for PostgreSQL is often plain SQLAlchemy). I guess I'll just use flask.py or something for my next project. This is not meant as criticism, just my personal experience.

Have a look at Pyramid[1] if you plan a slightly larger project. I've been looking at it for years.

[1] http://www.pylonsproject.org/

Re: Must-have Django packages

#98

Post by michaelmior » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 1:13 PM UTC

peter_l_downs wrote: post #53

TheMakeA wrote: post #17

What are people using these days for compiling their static assets (js minification + concatenation, etc)? We have been using django-pipeline but it has been a nightmare.

We're currently using Django Compressor [0], and it works pretty well. It was slightly annoying to get it to work well with staticfiles [1], as we host all of our content on S3 and serve through cloudfront in production. But, it's nice because now we can do this in our template: and with compress like this: {% compress js %} {% endcompress %} so that referencing static files is consistent. [0]: https://github.com/jez…

I used to use this, and it is convenient for small sites. But it quickly gets hard to manage. It also makes it extremely difficult to share compiled assets between pages with different templates.

Re: Must-have Django packages

#99

Post by michaelmior » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 1:14 PM UTC

ludwigvan wrote: post #61

TheMakeA wrote: post #17

What are people using these days for compiling their static assets (js minification + concatenation, etc)? We have been using django-pipeline but it has been a nightmare.

We use django-assets. http://elsdoerfer.name/docs/django-assets/

+1 for django-assets. I've found this to be the best solution so far. I've used it combination with django-storages to compile and push assets to S3.

Re: Must-have Django packages

#100

Post by glynjackson » Fri, Jan 10, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

timc3 wrote: post #75

glynjackson wrote: post #73

A few I work with on most projects are... Backend: one of the most popular API Frameworks is Tastypie. Authentication and authorization: Django Userena. Debugging: Django Extensions. Django CMS Django Haystack These are a must for your tool kit.

I would recommend DjangoRestFramework any day over Tastypie after having used Tastypie for two years. DjangoRestFramework code base is better, it's better thought out, it should be part of Django core.

I've used both in projects I honestly don't like the auto documentation Django Rest Framework assumes you want. I enjoyed using both but I lead towards TastyPie, yum!