1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
|
.. index::
single: Agendaless Consulting
single: Pylons
single: Django
single: Zope
single: frameworks vs. libraries
single: framework
:app:`Pyramid` Introduction
==============================
If they are judged only by differences in user interface, most web
applications seem to have very little in common with each other. For
example, a web page served by one web application might be a
representation of the contents of an accounting ledger, while a web
page served by another application might be a listing of songs. These
applications probably won't serve the same set of customers. However,
although they're not very similar on the surface, both a
ledger-serving application and a song-serving application can be
written using :app:`Pyramid`.
:app:`Pyramid` is a very general open source Python web
*framework*. As a framework, its primary job is to make it easier for
a developer to create an arbitrary web application. The type of
application being created isn't really important; it could be a
spreadsheet, a corporate intranet, or an "oh-so-Web-2.0" social
networking platform. :app:`Pyramid` is general enough that it can
be used in a wide variety of circumstances.
.. sidebar:: Frameworks vs. Libraries
A *framework* differs from a *library* in one very important way:
library code is always *called* by code that you write, while a
framework always *calls* code that you write. Using a set of
libraries to create an application is usually easier than using a
framework initially, because you can choose to cede control to
library code you have not authored very selectively. But when you
use a framework, you are required to cede a greater portion of
control to code you have not authored: code that resides in the
framework itself. You needn't use a framework at all to create a
web application using Python. A rich set of libraries already
exists for the platform. In practice, however, using a framework
to create an application is often more practical than rolling your
own via a set of libraries if the framework provides a set of
facilities that fits your application requirements.
The first release of the predecessor to :app:`Pyramid` (named
:mod:`repoze.bfg`) was made in July of 2008. Since its first release,
we've tried to ensure that it maintains the following attributes:
Simplicity
:app:`Pyramid` attempts to be a *"pay only for what you eat"*
framework which delivers results even if you have only partial
knowledge. Other frameworks may expect you to understand many
concepts and technologies fully before you can be truly productive.
:app:`Pyramid` doesn't force you to use any particular technology
to produce an application, and we try to keep the core set of
concepts you need to understand to a minimum.
A Sense of Fun
Developing a :app:`Pyramid` application should not feel
"enterprisey". We like to keep things down-to-earth.
Minimalism
:app:`Pyramid` provides only the very basics: *URL to code
mapping*, *templating*, *security*, and *assets*. There is not
much more to the framework than these pieces: you are expected to
provide the rest.
Documentation
Because :app:`Pyramid` is minimal, it's relatively easy to keep
its documentation up-to-date, which is helpful to bring new
developers up to speed. It's our goal that nothing remain
undocumented about :app:`Pyramid`.
Speed
:app:`Pyramid` is faster than many other popular Python web
frameworks for common tasks such as templating and simple response
generation. The "hardware is cheap" mantra has its limits when
you're responsible for managing a great many machines: the fewer you
need, the less pain you'll have.
Familiarity
The :app:`Pyramid` framework is a canonization of practices that
"fit the brains" of its authors.
Trustability
:app:`Pyramid` is developed conservatively and tested
exhaustively. *If it ain't tested, it's broke.* Every release of
:app:`Pyramid` has 100% statement coverage via unit tests.
Openness
Like :term:`Python`, the :app:`Pyramid` software is distributed
under a `permissive open source license
<http://repoze.org/license.html>`_.
.. index::
single: Pylons
single: Agendaless Consulting
single: repoze namespace package
What Is The Pylons Project?
---------------------------
:app:`Pyramid` is a member of the collection of software published under the
Pylons Project. Pylons software is written by a loose-knit community of
contributors. The `Pylons Project website <http://docs.pylonshq.com>`_
includes details about how :app:`Pyramid` relates to the Pylons Project.
.. index::
single: pyramid and other frameworks
single: Zope
single: Pylons
single: Django
single: MVC
:app:`Pyramid` and Other Web Frameworks
------------------------------------------
Until the end of 2010, :app:`Pyramid` was known as :mod:`repoze.bfg`; it was
merged into the Pylons project as :app:`Pyramid` in November of that year.
:app:`Pyramid` was inspired by :term:`Zope`, :term:`Pylons` (version
1.0) and :term:`Django`. As a result, :app:`Pyramid` borrows several
concepts and features from each, combining them into a unique web
framework.
Many features of :app:`Pyramid` trace their origins back to
:term:`Zope`. Like Zope applications, :app:`Pyramid` applications
can be configured via a set of declarative configuration files. Like
Zope applications, :app:`Pyramid` applications can be easily
extended: if you obey certain constraints, the application you produce
can be reused, modified, re-integrated, or extended by third-party
developers without forking the original application. The concepts of
:term:`traversal` and declarative security in :app:`Pyramid` were
pioneered first in Zope.
The :app:`Pyramid` concept of :term:`URL dispatch` is inspired by the
:term:`Routes` system used by :term:`Pylons` version 1.0. Like Pylons
version 1.0, :app:`Pyramid` is mostly policy-free. It makes no
assertions about which database you should use, and its built-in
templating facilities are included only for convenience. In essence,
it only supplies a mechanism to map URLs to :term:`view` code, along
with a set of conventions for calling those views. You are free to
use third-party components that fit your needs in your applications.
The concept of :term:`view` is used by :app:`Pyramid` mostly as it would be
by Django. :app:`Pyramid` has a documentation culture more like Django's
than like Zope's.
Like :term:`Pylons` version 1.0, but unlike :term:`Zope`, a
:app:`Pyramid` application developer may use completely imperative
code to perform common framework configuration tasks such as adding a
view or a route. In Zope, :term:`ZCML` is typically required for
similar purposes. In :term:`Grok`, a Zope-based web framework,
:term:`decorator` objects and class-level declarations are used for
this purpose. :app:`Pyramid` supports :term:`ZCML` and
decorator-based configuration, but does not require either. See
:ref:`configuration_narr` for more information.
Also unlike :term:`Zope` and unlike other "full-stack" frameworks such
as :term:`Django`, :app:`Pyramid` makes no assumptions about which
persistence mechanisms you should use to build an application. Zope
applications are typically reliant on :term:`ZODB`; :app:`Pyramid`
allows you to build :term:`ZODB` applications, but it has no reliance
on the ZODB software. Likewise, :term:`Django` tends to assume that
you want to store your application's data in a relational database.
:app:`Pyramid` makes no such assumption; it allows you to use a
relational database but doesn't encourage or discourage the decision.
Other Python web frameworks advertise themselves as members of a class
of web frameworks named `model-view-controller
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model–view–controller>`_ frameworks.
Insofar as this term has been claimed to represent a class of web
frameworks, :app:`Pyramid` also generally fits into this class.
.. sidebar:: You Say :app:`Pyramid` is MVC, But Where's The Controller?
The :app:`Pyramid` authors believe that the MVC pattern just doesn't
really fit the web very well. In a :app:`Pyramid` application, there is a
resource tree, which represents the site structure, and views, which tend
to present the data stored in the resource tree and a user-defined "domain
model". However, no facility provided *by the framework* actually
necessarily maps to the concept of a "controller" or "model". So if you
had to give it some acronym, I guess you'd say :app:`Pyramid` is actually
an "RV" framework rather than an "MVC" framework. "MVC", however, is
close enough as a general classification moniker for purposes of
comparison with other web frameworks.
|
