blocks|key|113370|text|我有使用Django和TG1.1的经验。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|113371|IMO，TurboGears的强项是它的对象模型:+SQLAlchemy。当数据库方面的事情不是微不足道时，我更喜欢TurboGears。|113372|Django的ORM没有那么灵活和强大。|113373|话虽如此，我更喜欢Django。如果数据库模式适合Django的ORM，我会选择Django。|113374|根据我的经验，与TurboGears相比，使用Django的麻烦更少。|113375|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|K|$]]

I have experience with both Django and TG1.1.

IMO, TurboGears strong point is it's ORM: SQLAlchemy. I prefer TurboGears when the database side of things is non-trivial.

Django's ORM is just not that flexible and powerful.

That being said, I prefer Django. If the database schema is a good fit with Django's ORM I would go with Django.

In my experience, it is simply less hassle to use Django compared with TurboGears.

blocks|key|1413556|text|TG2是建立在塔架之上的，它也有相当大的社区。与TG1相比，TG变得更快了，而且它还包括一个按方法(不仅仅是网页)的缓存引擎。我认为它比Django对AJAX更友好，因为页面可以很容易地以HTML或JSON格式发布。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1413557|2011年更新:在经历了3年的臃肿框架之后，我是一个快乐的http://bottlepy.org/用户|offset|length|1413558|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://bottlepy.org/^0|0|T|K|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@$D|P|E|Q|1|R]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|M]]]]

TG2 is built on top of Pylons which has a fairly large community as well. TG got faster compared to TG1 and it includes a per-method (not just web pages) caching engine.
I think it's more AJAX-friendly than Django by the way pages can be easly published in HTML or JSON .

2011 update: after 3 years of bloated frameworks I'm an happy user of <a href="http://bottlepy.org/" rel="noreferrer">http://bottlepy.org/</a>

blocks|key|1101687|text|我已经使用Django一年了，当我刚开始使用的时候，我没有Python或Django的经验，发现它非常直观。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1101688|我已经创建了一些爱好者使用Django的谷歌应用程序引擎应用程序，最新的一个是我的网站的CMS。使用Django意味着我能够更快地编写代码，并且有更少的bug。|1101689|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I have been using Django for a year now and when I started I had no experience of Python or Django and found it very intuitive to use.

I have created a number of hobbyist Google App Engine apps using Django with the latest one being a CMS for my site. Using Django has meant that I have been able to code a lot quicker and with a lot less bugs.

blocks|key|1101659|text|我相信你已经从网上对TurboGears和DJango的大量比较中读到过。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1101660|但是对于你在CMS和GAE上的诱惑，我真的认为你应该走DJango的路。看看这些，然后自己决定吧。|1101661|Django+with+GAE|offset|length|1101662|Django+for+CMS|1101663|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/526256/best-django-features-that-do-work-on-google-app-engine/526313#526313|1|http://blueflavor.com/blog/2007/dec/03/django-a-flexible-choice-for-y/^0|0|0|0|F|0|0|0|E|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@$F|W|G|X|1|Y]]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|Z|8|@]|9|@$F|10|G|11|1|12]]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|13|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|K|$L|$5|M|N|O|A|$P|Q]]|R|$5|M|N|O|A|$P|S]]]]

Am sure you would have read from plenty of comparison between TurboGears and DJango on web.

But as for your temptation on CMS and GAE, i can really think you got to go DJango way. 
Check these out, and decide youself.

<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/526256/best-django-features-that-do-work-on-google-app-engine/526313#526313">Django with GAE</a>

<a href="http://blueflavor.com/blog/2007/dec/03/django-a-flexible-choice-for-y/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Django for CMS</a>

blocks|key|1415666|text|我只有一个question...is，你正在开发的针对社交网络或定制业务逻辑的应用程序？|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1415667|我个人认为，如果你真的想要灵活性和无边界，Django对于社交网络和塔架/涡轮齿轮是很好的……|1415668|只有我的2c|1415669|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

Ive only got one question...is the app you are developing directed towards social networking
 or customized business logic?

I personally find Django is good for social networking and pylons/turbogears if you really
 want the flexibility and no boundaries...

just my 2c

blocks|key|1415681|text|TG2看起来非常复杂和令人困惑，即使是做一些简单的事情，比如一个带有多条错误消息的登录页面How+to+extend+the+Turbogears+2.1+login+functionality，我认为这是因为模块化的过度……|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|1415682|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1960747/how-to-extend-the-turbogears-2-1-login-functionality^0|19|1G|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@$A|M|B|N|1|O]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|E|$F|$5|G|H|I|C|$J|K]]]]

TG2 seem much complicated and confusing, even for doing somewhat simple like a login page with multimple error messages
<a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1960747/how-to-extend-the-turbogears-2-1-login-functionality">How to extend the Turbogears 2.1 login functionality</a>
I think thats because of intemperance in modularity...

blocks|key|1101909|text|Django+ORM使用活动记录实现-您将在大多数ORM中看到此实现。基本上，这意味着数据库中的每一行都直接映射到代码中的一个对象，反之亦然。像Django这样的ORM框架不需要预定义模式就可以在代码中使用属性。您只需使用它们，因为框架可以通过查看数据库模式来“理解”结构。此外，您可以只将记录保存到数据库，因为它被映射到表中的特定行。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1101910|SQLAlchemy使用数据映射器实现-当使用这种实现时，数据库结构和对象结构是分离的(它们不像在活动记录实现中那样是1:1+)。在大多数情况下，您必须使用另一个持久层来保持与数据库的交互(例如，保存对象)。因此，您不能像使用活动记录实现时那样只调用save()方法(这是一个骗局)，但另一方面，您的代码不必知道数据库中的整个关系结构才能运行，因为代码和数据库之间没有直接关系。|1101911|那么他们中的哪一个赢得了这场战斗呢？没有。这取决于你想要实现的目标。我相信，如果您的应用程序主要是一个CRUD+(创建、读取、更新、删除)应用程序，并且在不同数据实体之间的关系上没有硬性和复杂的规则，那么您应该使用活动记录实现(Django)。它将允许您轻松、快速地为您的产品设置MVP，没有任何麻烦。如果您的应用程序中有许多“业务规则”和限制，那么使用Data+Mapper模型可能更好，因为它不会束缚您，并迫使您像活动记录那样严格思考。|1101912|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

Django ORM uses the active record implementation – you’ll see this implementation in most ORMs. Basically what it means is that each row in the database is directly mapped to an object in the code and vice versa. ORM frameworks such as Django won’t require predefining the schema to use the properties in the code. You just use them, as the framework can ‘understand’ the structure by looking at the database schema. Also, you can just save the record to the database, as it’s mapped to a specific row in the table.

SQLAlchemy uses the Data Mapper implementation – When using this kind of implementation, there is a separation between the database structure and the objects structure (they are not 1:1 as in the Active Record implementation). In most cases, you’ll have to use another persistence layer to keep interact with the database (for example, to save the object). So you can’t just call the save() method as you can when using the Active Record implementation (which is a con) but on the other hand, you code doesn’t have to know the entire relational structure in the database to function, as there is no direct relationship between the code and the database.

So which of them wins this battle? None. It depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. It’s my believe that if your application is a mostly a CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) application which no hard and complex rules to apply on the relationships between the different data entities, you should use the Active Record implementation (Django). It will allow you to easily and quickly set up an MVP for your product, without any hassle. If you have a lot of “business rules” and restrictions in your applications, you might be better with the Data Mapper model, as it won’t tie you up and force you to think strictly as Active Record does.

I have been using Turbogears 1 for prototyping small sites for the last couple of years and it is getting a little long in the tooth. Any suggestions on making the call between upgrading to Turbogears 2 or switching to something like Django? I'm torn between the familiarity of the TG community who are pretty responsive and do pretty good documentation vs the far larger community using Django. I am quite tempted by the built-in CMS features and the Google AppEngine support.
Any advice?

Turbogears 2 vs Django - any advice on choosing replacement for Turbogears 1?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

在过去的几年里，我一直在使用Turbogears 1对小站点进行原型设计，但它的使用时间有点长了。在升级到Turbogears 2或切换到Django这样的东西之间，有什么建议吗？我在熟悉的TG社区和使用Django的更大的社区之间左右为难，他们响应很快，文档也做得很好。我被内置的内容管理系统功能和谷歌AppEngine的支持所吸引。有什么建议吗？

问Turbogears 2 vs Django -对选择Turbogears 1的替代品有什么建议吗？
EN

回答 7

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问Turbogears 2 vs Django -对选择Turbogears 1的替代品有什么建议吗？EN

回答 7

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问Turbogears 2 vs Django -对选择Turbogears 1的替代品有什么建议吗？
EN