«

I use Chinese and therefore Unicode very heavily, and so Python 3 is
an unavoidable choice for me. But I'm frustrated by the fact that
Django, Pylons, and TurboGears do not support Python 3 yet and
(according to their development websites) will not for a very long
time to come.

So I am asking for recommendations for web frameworks that support
Python 3. I am running Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty).

Thanks!

On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:13 -0700, David Prager Branner wrote:
> I use Chinese and therefore Unicode very heavily, and so Python 3 is
> an unavoidable choice for me. But I'm frustrated by the fact that
> Django, Pylons, and TurboGears do not support Python 3 yet and
> (according to their development websites) will not for a very long
> time to come.
>
> So I am asking for recommendations for web frameworks that support
> Python 3. I am running Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty).

Python 2.x has Unicode. In fact Django and the like use unicode
heavily.

What's different about Python 3 is that there is only unicode strings,
whereas Python 2 has a string type and a unicode type.

So it's not true that Python 3 is an unavoidable choice for using
unicode.

At Sunday 23 August 2009 22:13:16 you wrote:
> I use Chinese and therefore Unicode very heavily, and so Python 3 is
> an unavoidable choice for me.
Python 2.x supports Unicode just as well as Python 3. Every common web
framework works perfectly with unicode.

In any case, there is bottle [1], which provides a *very minimal* framework
for WSGI web development. Don't expect too much, it is really small, and
doesn't do much more than routing and minimal templating.

However, it is the only Python-3-compatible web framework I know of.

[1] http://bottle.paws.de/page/start

--
Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
(Rosa Luxemburg)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkqRp/EACgkQGV4vxEMMOxeGJACeM6Gb37XUOuHeES63orhSzHmr
7ScAn0+LkKDGifoCrQOPX4B2RIMpq6Vd
=vsNE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Prager Branner wrote:
> I use Chinese and therefore Unicode very heavily, and so Python 3 is
> an unavoidable choice for me.

As others noted before, this statement is not true by itself.


> But I'm frustrated by the fact that
> Django, Pylons, and TurboGears do not support Python 3 yet and
> (according to their development websites) will not for a very long
> time to come.

http://wiki.python.org/moin/PortingDjangoTo3k

Stefan

On Aug 24, 6:34*am, Sebastian Wiesner <basti.wies...@gmx.net> wrote:
> At Sunday 23 August 2009 22:13:16 you wrote:> I use Chinese and therefore Unicode very heavily, and so Python 3 is
> > an unavoidable choice for me.
>
> Python 2.x supports Unicode just as well as Python 3. *Every common web
> framework works perfectly with unicode.
>
> In any case, there is bottle [1], which provides a *very minimal* framework
> for WSGI web development. *Don't expect too much, it is really small, and
> doesn't do much more than routing and minimal templating.
>
> However, it is the only Python-3-compatible web framework I know of.
>
> [1]http://bottle.paws.de/page/start

There is one big flaw with your claim. That is the there is no WSGI
specification for Python 3.0 as yet. Anything that claims to work with
WSGI and Python 3.0 is just a big guess as far as how WSGI for Python
3.0 may work.

I would therefore be a bit cautious with your claim.

Graham

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:32:09 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> What's different about Python 3 is that there is only unicode strings,
> whereas Python 2 has a string type and a unicode type.

Python 2 has "str" (char) and "unicode" (wchar) types.

Python 3 has "bytes" (char) and "str" (wchar) types.

The main difference is that Python 3 uses unicode "by default", i.e.
string literals are unicode rather than byte strings, variables
such as sys.argv and os.environ contain unicode strings, etc.

There are other differences, e.g.:

+ Passing a "bytes" object where "str" is expected will raise an exception
rather than using an automatic conversion
+ Subscripting a "bytes" object returns an integer between 0 and 255
+ upper(), isalpha(), etc assume ASCII rather than the system encoding

In article <e9b627c8-eb88-4312-8777->,
Graham Dumpleton <> wrote:
>On Aug 24, 6:34=A0am, Sebastian Wiesner <basti.wies...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> In any case, there is bottle [1], which provides a *very minimal* framewo=
>rk
>> for WSGI web development. =A0Don't expect too much, it is really small, a=
>nd
>> doesn't do much more than routing and minimal templating.
>>
>> However, it is the only Python-3-compatible web framework I know of.
>>
>> [1]http://bottle.paws.de/page/start
>
>There is one big flaw with your claim. That is the there is no WSGI
>specification for Python 3.0 as yet. Anything that claims to work with
>WSGI and Python 3.0 is just a big guess as far as how WSGI for Python
>3.0 may work.

Perhaps you meant "library" instead of "specification"? I don't
understand how a language can be missing a specification.
--
Aahz () <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"I support family values -- Addams family values" --www.nancybuttons.com

On 01:41 am, wrote:
>In article
><e9b627c8-eb88-4312-8777->,
>Graham Dumpleton <> wrote:
>>On Aug 24, 6:34=A0am, Sebastian Wiesner <basti.wies...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>In any case, there is bottle [1], which provides a *very minimal*
>>>framewo=
>>rk
>>>for WSGI web development. =A0Don't expect too much, it is really
>>>small, a=
>>nd
>>>doesn't do much more than routing and minimal templating.
>>>
>>>However, it is the only Python-3-compatible web framework I know of.
>>>
>>>[1]http://bottle.paws.de/page/start
>>
>>There is one big flaw with your claim. That is the there is no WSGI
>>specification for Python 3.0 as yet. Anything that claims to work with
>>WSGI and Python 3.0 is just a big guess as far as how WSGI for Python
>>3.0 may work.
>
>Perhaps you meant "library" instead of "specification"?

He meant specification.

Python 3.x is different enough from any Python 2.x release that PEP 333
no longer completely makes sense. It needs to be modified to be
applicable to Python 3.x.

So, in the sense that there is no written down, generally agreed upon
specification for what WSGI on Python 3.x means, there is no...
specification.

There is, however, apparently, a library.

Jean-Paul

On Aug 26, 12:19*pm, exar...@twistedmatrix.com wrote:
> On 01:41 am, a...@pythoncraft.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><e9b627c8-eb88-4312-8777-1b0064186...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >Graham Dumpleton *<graham.dumple...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Aug 24, 6:34=A0am, Sebastian Wiesner <basti.wies...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >>>In any case, there is bottle [1], which provides a *very minimal*
> >>>framewo=
> >>rk
> >>>for WSGI web development. =A0Don't expect too much, it is really
> >>>small, a=
> >>nd
> >>>doesn't do much more than routing and minimal templating.
>
> >>>However, it is the only Python-3-compatible web framework I know of.
>
> >>>[1]http://bottle.paws.de/page/start
>
> >>There is one big flaw with your claim. That is the there is no WSGI
> >>specification for Python 3.0 as yet. Anything that claims to work with
> >>WSGI and Python 3.0 is just a big guess as far as how WSGI for Python
> >>3.0 may work.
>
> >Perhaps you meant "library" instead of "specification"?
>
> He meant specification.
>
> Python 3.x is different enough from any Python 2.x release that PEP 333
> no longer completely makes sense. *It needs to be modified to be
> applicable to Python 3.x.
>
> So, in the sense that there is no written down, generally agreed upon
> specification for what WSGI on Python 3.x means, there is no...
> specification.
>
> There is, however, apparently, a library.

If you are talking about wsgiref then that was somewhat broken in
Python 3.0. In Python 3.1 it works for some definition of works. The
problem again being that since WSGI specification hasn't been updated
for Python 3.X, that how it works will likely not match what the
specification may eventually say. This will become more and more of a
problem if WSGI specification isn't updated. At the moment the
discussion is going around in circles, although, if I put my
optimistic face on, I would say it is a slow inward spiral. Not quite
a death spiral at least.

Graham