I have developed a backend library, say, cool_project. Now I want to build a web interface for it. So I create a Django project. Of course, I want to name it cool_project: my mother told me that Hungarian notation is bad and that the name cool_project is much better than any of cool_project_web etc.
But now I have a collision. As long as I try importing cool_project (the backend one) from django/cool_project/views.py (the views.py of the main Django app) a frontend package is being imported.
Is there any way to import backend project in this case? I tried to add full path to backend package (sys.path.insert(0, "/home/.../...")) but it didn't help.
Or maybe there is some well-known naming convention which helps avoiding such collisions?
You can use relative imports likefrom .. import cool_project as long you modules are in a package. I would suggest you to rename your app to something else though. It would create unnecessary complexity
Related
I've googled around for this, but I still have trouble relating to what Django defines as "apps".
Should I create a new app for each piece of functionality in a site, even though it uses models from the main project?
Do you guys have good rule of thumb of when to split off a new app, and when to keep functionality together with the "main project" or other apps?
James Bennett has a wonderful set of slides on how to organize reusable apps in Django.
I prefer to think of Django applications as reusable modules or components than as "applications".
This helps me encapsulate and decouple certain features from one another, improving re-usability should I decide to share a particular "app" with the community at large, and maintainability.
My general approach is to bucket up specific features or feature sets into "apps" as though I were going to release them publicly. The hard part here is figuring out how big each bucket is.
A good trick I use is to imagine how my apps would be used if they were released publicly. This often encourages me to shrink the buckets and more clearly define its "purpose".
Here is the updated presentation on 6 September 2008.
DjangoCon 2008: Reusable Apps #7:53
Slide: Reusable_apps.pdf
Taken from the slide
Should this be its own application?
Is it completely unrelated to the app’s focus?
Is it orthogonal to whatever else I’m doing?
Will I need similar functionality on other sites?
If any of them is "Yes"? Then best to break it into a
separate application.
I tend to create new applications for each logically separate set of models. e.g.:
User Profiles
Forum Posts
Blog posts
The two best answers to this question I've found around the web are:
The Reusable Apps Talk (slides)(video) also mentioned in other answers. Bennett, the author and Django contributor, regularly publishes apps for others to use and has a strong viewpoint towards many small apps.
Doordash's Tips for Django at Scale which gives the opposite advice and says in their case they migrated to one single app after starting with many separate apps. They ran into problems with the migration dependency graph between apps.
Both sources agree that you should create a separate app in the following situations:
If you plan to reuse your app in another Django project (especially if you plan to publish it for others to reuse).
If the app has few or no dependencies between it and another app. Here you might be able to imagine an app running as its own microservice in the future.
The rule I follow is it should be a new app if I want to reuse the functionality in a different project.
If it needs deep understanding of the models in your project, it's probably more cohesive to stick it with the models.
The best answer to this question is given by Andrew Godwin (Django core developer):
The main purpose of apps is, in my eyes, to provide logical separation of reusable components - specifically, a first-class namespace for models/admin/etc. - and to provide an easy way to turn things “on” or “off”.
In some ways, it’s a relic of the time when Django was created - when Python packaging and modules were much less developed and you basically had to have your own solution to the problem. That said, it’s still a core part of Django’s mental model, and I think INSTALLED_APPS is still a cleaner, easier solution than Python’s replacement offering of entrypoints (which makes it quite hard to disable a package that is installed in an environment but which you don’t want to use).
Is there anything specifically you think could be decoupled from the app concept today? Models and admin need it for autodiscovery and a unique namespace prefix, so that’s hard to undo, and I’m struggling to think of other features you need it for (in fact, if all you want is just a library, you can make it a normal Python one - no need for the app wrapping unless you’re shipping models, templates or admin code IIRC)
An 'app' could be many different things, it all really comes down to taste. For example, let's say you are building a blog. Your app could be the entire blog, or you could have an 'admin' app, a 'site' app for all of the public views, an 'rss' app, a 'services' app so developers can interface with the blog in their own ways, etc.
I personally would make the blog itself the app, and break out the functionality within it. The blog could then be reused rather easily in other websites.
The nice thing about Django is that it will recognize any models.py file within any level of your directory tree as a file containing Django models. So breaking your functionality out into smaller 'sub apps' within an 'app' itself won't make anything more difficult.
I am new to pyramid and even though I've read a lot of its documentation (tutorial + documentation), it's still not clear to me how to write modular, reusable code.
To be more specific, let's present an example. Let's say that I want to create a site that handles a forum, a site that handles customers and their orders where people will also be able to participate in a forum, and a site that handles polls. Let's say that when designing these sites, I decided to write the following "modules" (apps, plugins, whatever their name should be): A Users module, a Forum module, a Customers module and a polls module. I'd like to maintain each module separately, and be able use them as follows:
When creating the Forum site I'd like to use the Forum module and the Users module.
When creating the Customers site I'd like to use the Users module, the Forum module and the Customers module.
When creating the Pools site I'd like to use the Users module and the Polls module.
Moreover, the Forums module, the Customers module and the Polls module should depend on the Users module, and their models.py should be referencing the Users module's users-schema (assuming that we are working with relational databases and I we are using sqlalchemy for our ORM representation). Each module should have their own static content, models, forms, etc.
I know that the example I've given could have been solved with different designs, but please, this was the first example that came to my mind that indeed fits my questions, so let's -please- pretend that it is indeed a requirement.
That said: How could I achieve this functionality with pyramid? I think that configuration wise, config.include() is my probable candidate, but the implementation is very unclear to me, so any help would be really appreciated!
One way to go is to distribute each application as a separate pyramid application using setuptools and install with pip. For example if you're developing new application that will require users and forum apps, you could just pip install my-users==0.1 my-forum==0.5 in your virtualenv and include both apps in your new app config:
config.include('my_users')
config.include('my_forum')
Both apps should implement an includeme function.
Check how other applications provide reusability:
https://github.com/Pylons/pyramid_debugtoolbar
https://github.com/ITCase/pyramid_sacrud
I'm using Django and I'm wondering whether it's proper to use myapp.models, opposed to myproject.myapp.models, or in INSTALLED_APPS, should the FULL NAME be used myproject.myapp or is it alright to just use myapp for it's name? I am wondering because if I were to change the project name using the latter method it would break my app, but I'm not sure that just because the former method works that it is correct. Could someone clear this up for me.
Thank you!
I would say that it is not encouraged to reference your apps using your project name. I say this because as of Django 1.4 this will not work with a default Django project. You can read more about this here:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.4/#updated-default-project-layout-and-manage-py
A quote from that:
"If settings, URLconfs and apps within the project are imported or referenced using the project name prefix (e.g. myproject.settings, ROOT_URLCONF = "myproject.urls", etc), the new manage.py will need to be moved one directory up, so it is outside the project package rather than adjacent to settings.py and urls.py."
I would recommend against it since it would mean messing with the default project structure, not a huge deal, but increased unnecessary work.
I would also recommend against it since it couples your apps to your project, which imho goes against the philosophy of Django which advocates reusable, decoupled apps.
I have a fairly complex "product" I'm getting ready to build using Django. I'm going to avoid using the terms "project" and "application" in this context, because I'm not clear on their specific meaning in Django.
Projects can have many apps. Apps can be shared among many projects. Fine.
I'm not reinventing the blog or forum - I don't see any portion of my product being reusable in any context. Intuitively, I would call this one "application." Do I then do all my work in a single "app" folder?
If so... in terms of Django's project.app namespace, my inclination is to use myproduct.myproduct, but of course this isn't allowed (but the application I'm building is my project, and my project is an application!). I'm therefore lead to believe that perhaps I'm supposed to approach Django by building one app per "significant" model, but I don't know where to draw the boundaries in my schema to separate it into apps - I have a lot of models with relatively complex relationships.
I'm hoping there's a common solution to this...
Once you graduate from using startproject and startapp, there's nothing to stop you from combining a "project" and "app" in the same Python package. A project is really nothing more than a settings module, and an app is really nothing more than a models module—everything else is optional.
For small sites, it's entirely reasonable to have something like:
site/
models.py
settings.py
tests.py
urls.py
views.py
Try to answer question: "What does my
application do?". If you cannot answer
in a single sentence, then maybe you can
split it into several apps with cleaner
logic.
I read this thought somewhere soon after I've started to work with django and I find that I ask this question of myself quite often and it helps me.
Your apps don't have to be reusable, they can depend on each other, but they should do one thing.
What is to stop you using myproduct.myproduct? What you need to achieve that roughly consists of doing this:
django-admin.py startproject myproduct
cd myproduct
mkdir myproduct
touch myproduct/__init__.py
touch myproduct/models.py
touch myproduct/views.py
and so on. Would it help if I said views.py doesn't have to be called views.py? Provided you can name, on the python path, a function (usually package.package.views.function_name) it will get handled. Simple as that. All this "project"/"app" stuff is just python packages.
Now, how are you supposed to do it? Or rather, how might I do it? Well, if you create a significant piece of reusable functionality, like say a markup editor, that's when you create a "top level app" which might contain widgets.py, fields.py, context_processors.py etc - all things you might want to import.
Similarly, if you can create something like a blog in a format that is pretty generic across installs, you can wrap it up in an app, with its own template, static content folder etc, and configure an instance of a django project to use that app's content.
There are no hard and fast rules saying you must do this, but it is one of the goals of the framework. The fact that everything, templates included, allows you to include from some common base means your blog should fit snugly into any other setup, simply by looking after its own part.
However, to address your actual concern, yes, nothing says you can't work with the top level project folder. That's what apps do and you can do it if you really want to. I tend not to, however, for several reasons:
Django's default setup doesn't do it.
Often, I want to create a main app, so I create one, usually called website. However, at a later date I might want to develop original functionality just for this site. With a view to making it removable (whether or not I ever do) I tend to then create a separate directory. This also means I can drop said functionality just by unlinking that package from the config and removing the folder, rather than a complex delete the right urls from a global urls.py folder.
Very often, even when I want to make something independent, it needs somewhere to live whilst I look after it / make it independent. Basically the above case, but for stuff I do intend to make generic.
My top level folder often contains a few other things, including but not limited to wsgi scripts, sql scripts etc.
django's management extensions rely on subdirectories. So it makes sense to name packages appropriately.
In short, the reason there is a convention is the same as any other convention - it helps when it comes to others working with your project. If I see fields.py I immediately expect code in it to subclass django's field, whereas if I see inputtypes.py I might not be so clear on what that means without looking at it.
I've found the following blog posts very useful about django applications and projects:
http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/sep/10/django-tips-laying-out-application/
http://web.archive.org/web/20080302205555/www.pointy-stick.com/blog/2007/11/09/django-tip-developing-without-projects/
In principle, you have a lot of freedom with django for organizing the source code of your product.
If so... in terms of Django's project.app namespace, my inclination is to usemyproduct.myproduct, but of course this isn't allowed
There is nothing like not allowed. Its your project, no one is restricting you. It is advisable to keep a reasonable name.
I don't see any portion of my product being reusable in any context. Intuitively, I would call this one "application." Do I then do all my work in a single "app" folder?
In a general django project there are many apps (contrib apps) which are used really in every project.
Let us say that your project does only one task and has only a single app (I name it main as thethe project revolves around it and is hardly pluggable). This project too still uses some other apps generally.
Now if you say that your project is using just the one app (INSTALLED_APPS='myproduct') so what is use of project defining the project as project.app, I think you should consider some points:
There are many other things that the code other than the app in a project handles (base static files, base templates, settings....i.e. provides the base).
In the general project.app approach django automatically defines sql schema from models.
Your project would be much easier to be built with the conventional approach.
You may define some different names for urls, views and other files as you wish, but I don't see the need.
You might need to add some applications in future which would be real easy with the conventional django projects which otherwise it may become equally or more difficult and tedious to do.
As far as most of the work being done in the app is concerned, I think that is the case with most of django projects.
Here Django creators points out that difference themselves.
I think that thinking about Apps as they have to be reusable in other projects is good. Also a good way of thinking about Apps in Django provide modern web applications.
Imagine that you are creating big dynamic web app basing on JavaScript.
You can create then in django App named e.g "FrontEnd" <-- in thins app you will display content.
Then you create some backend Apps. E.g App named "Comments" that will store user comments. And "Comments" App will not display anything itself. It will be just API for AJAX requests of your dynamic JS website.
In this way you can always reuse your "Comments" app. You can make it open source without opening source of whole project. And you keep clean logic of your project.
I'd like to move my models to a separate directory, similar to the way it's done with Rails to cut down on code clutter. Is there any way to do this easily?
Thanks,
Collin
I assume you're using the basic webkit and not Django or something fancy. In that case just create a subdirectory called models. Put any python files you use for your models in here. Create also one blank file in this folder called __init__.py.
Then in your main.py or "controller" or what have you, put:
import models
at the top.
You just created a python package.
Brandon's answer is what I do. Furthermore, I rather like Rails's custom of one model per file. I don't stick to it completely but that is my basic pattern, especially since Python tends to encourage more-but-simpler lines of code than Ruby.
So what I do is I make models a package too:
models/
models/__init__.py
models/user.py
models/item.py
models/blog_post.py
In the main .py files I put my basic class definition, plus perhaps some helper functions (Python's module system makes it much safer to keep quickie helper functions coupled to the class definition). And my __init__.py stitches them all together:
"""The application models"""
from user import User
from item import Item
from blog_post import BlogPost
It's slightly redundant but I have lots of control of the namespace.