From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Does anyone have any negatives to list about this framework? --RobKohr (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Given nobody uses it (apart from its author), probably not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 49014 messages on the mailing list. Some people seem to use it. --Stesch (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also surprised at the lack of negatives about this framework. It does have some good features but also serious flaws. The code has obvious problems. Tabs are mixed with spaces for indentation (example: web2py/gluon/, _Web2pyImporter). Many attempts to write __init__ methods fail to call the super class or call it in the wrong way (i.e. not using super). I would expect university CS undergraduates to know this. The whole framework seems to rebel against otherwise universally accepted Python and software engineering standards. I've used it for the past few months and had a really tough time as it was very difficult to write unit tests against the code. This is a direct consequence of web2py's global environment. I have added a section to warn potential adoptees of this pitfall.

Although web2py has some good features, it's main flaw (the global environment) is not going to be fixed and is instead touted as a feature. I don't consider web2py application code to be python code because of this difference.

(~ 1 year later) Someone removed (simply deleted) the section I added about the pitfalls of the global environment. I put it back. Now I see that someone has replaced it with a section that admits one pitfall (increased likelihood of namespace conflicts), helpfully explains how to deal with the global environment (by moving code out of it, into modules), but has again simply deleted some of the other pitfalls (most importantly, the difficulty it imposes on unit-testing).

It's annoying that this page is being used like an advert for a web-framework. As in, it seems the promotion of web2py is more important than any discussion of the framework. Valid criticisms of web2py seem to be angrily deleted. Wikipedia is not about advertising, nor should it be used for the detailed documentation of how to deal with software API faults.

It must be said that although the software is GPL, there is no free manual, so your deemed to buy the manual to use it! --marc (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The book is free and online now (about 4 months ago). --Stesch (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A small correction - plenty of free documentation is available on the site, the 'official manual' which does cost money is a (useful, but not necessary) academic publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a corporate presentation[edit]

This article is in need of attention (ideally from a few people). Headings like "Some rare features", "Flexible views" and "Strong security" are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It might well be a notable framework, but this does not seem like neutral secondary research to me; it seems like proselytism by the project's author(s). I don't know the subject very well myself, so I don't want to start editing and get things wrong, but I have added the 'advert' template in the hope someone else will clean it up. (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you are shocked at some adjective[edit]

Notably "rare", "Flexible" and "Strong".

  • But those features are REALLY rare — if you are a web developer, you are have to know.
  • And those views are REALLY flexible — if you are a web developer, you are have to know, too.
  • And no other web application framework does so many and so hard against vulnerabilities as web2py.

I'm an independent web developer, previously a professional journalist and editor throughout one and half decades, started as software engineer more than two decades ago. More than 90% of this article written by me, on two different machines (so 2 IPs), one with an account named "Beerc". All facts checked by using the framework, and I know the subject moderately well, so my firm belief is that the things written are FACTS, not advertisement. My English is somewhat weak, and despite many reading, checking and re-reading probably the text has some linguistic errors (sorry).

I never wrote a single line of source into this software, and never have any closer connection to the developers of this project. (I asked the lead developer to check the article and repair any error he find — he suggested only minor corrections.) I'm only a happy user of web2py, but — despite the printed manual, which is pretty good — dissatisfied by the documentation, scattered over many places. Namely the "Installation, upgrade" section — which you qualified as "instructions, advice, or how-to content" — gives informations which missed for me badly when I searched guidelines for start. Then I found this Wikipedia page, and started to complement it with informations which was important for me, and — probably — for other developers who want to consider is this software worthwile to spend time to learn. "Installation, upgrade" section answers some questions:

  • is it really easy to start to use this software?
  • Okay, but how it runs on GAE? (Details however remains at two different places referenced in article.)

If you compare this article to many other articles about softwares, you can find that these details are fairly common. People are curious, sometimes inquisitive about details. Formerly I started to complement some other Wikipedia articles, but unfortunately realized that I had not enough time and interest in writing about those softwares. Not even about CherryPy, despite I use it fairly extensively. Web2py is the first, and — perhaps — Wing IDE will be the second, which sufficiently important for me to spend time to research, check and write about. I would be happy if people creates more detailed, more comprehensive, even meticulous articles even about lesser softwares. Somebody spend an hour to write, many will spare many hours later when searching informations...

So I'm recklessly and respectfully suggest to remove those stigmas, if possible. Or attack some statement, specifically - not the whole article, generally - , with facts against statements. Thanks.

Beerc (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed "advert"[edit]

If someone has a problem with the tone of the article, let them come and discuss it here. We prefer contributors SIGN their mods to this document. I looked up the history of and found only 4 contributions -- two were adding the "advert" description to this page and describing it here.

if you have something specific to offer, please come back and engage us here.

Joebarnhart (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)