Tufão — Differences and Similarities with QDjango

182 views
Skip to first unread message

Adrián Chaves Fernández

unread,
Apr 21, 2013, 6:37:11 AM4/21/13
to qdj...@googlegroups.com

Hi all,

I had recently read a blog post, https://vinipsmaker.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/tufao-1-0-0/ , about a new version of a Qt-based web framework called Tufão.

But I had forgotten the name of the framework, so, today, when I had the idea of creating a web application (in the future) and I decided to go on and use this framework, Tufão, I had to search for it. When I searched for “qt web framework”, in addition to Tufão, I found out about your project, QDjango.

I would like to suggest that you have a look at the Tufão project and talk to its developers, and hopefully one of the following things happen:
* You both teams realize that you have exactly the same goals, and agree on enough things as to merge the projects together.
* You both teams realize that, while you have similar goals, there are differences that justify the existence of both projects.

In the latter case, whatever the reasons be that justify the existence of both projects (even if they are as “studid” as not agreeing on a name for the joint project), I would love to see that you both mention each other project in your documentation, explaining the differences, and maybe why someone would want to use a project and not the other.

I’ve suggested this same thing in a comment in the Tufão blog post linked above.

I really hope you take my advice. Currently, searching for “qdjango tufao” in Google throws absolutely no results, and for the time I choose one framework or the other for my application (assuming the projects were not merged) , I would like to take an informed decision, and not to throw a coin. From the description of each project, you seem to take similar approaches and have the quite similar goals.

tre...@silverfieldstech.com

unread,
Dec 3, 2013, 10:38:53 AM12/3/13
to qdj...@googlegroups.com
Every developer knows more than every other developer, so, you got no response.

Jeremy Lainé

unread,
Dec 3, 2013, 12:17:16 PM12/3/13
to qdj...@googlegroups.com
On 12/03/2013 04:38 PM, tre...@silverfieldstech.com wrote:
> Every developer knows more than every other developer, so, you got no response.
>

That's not exactly the case. The situation is more like this:

- QDjango is mostly about the object relational mapper (ORM), but also has an (optional)
HTTP framework which is nice but not extremely powerful

- tufao is exclusively about the HTTP framework

=> feel free to use QDjango's ORM and tufao's HTTP handler

Jeremy

Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira

unread,
Dec 3, 2013, 12:33:33 PM12/3/13
to qdj...@googlegroups.com
Em Ter, 2013-12-03 às 07:38 -0800, tre...@silverfieldstech.com escreveu:
Every developer knows more than every other developer, so, you got no response.

Well, I wanted to create a QDjango branch where Tufão would be used for all low-level operations, but I got distracted by other tasks.

I don't see QDjango and Tufão as opposing forces. I'm more concerned about low-level HTTP, where you could use Tufão to create a video streaming application or real-time WebSocket-based chat application.

I think (someone here could point me if I'm wrong) QDjango is more concerned with high-level abstractions.

With a Tufão-based branch, QDjango would gain WebSocket support for free. But maybe there are some problems. I want to improve Tufão flexibility and next version (2.x) is going to have easier and better multi-thread support and possibly FastCGI support.


--
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://about.me/vinipsmaker
signature.asc

Jeremy Lainé

unread,
Dec 3, 2013, 12:39:02 PM12/3/13
to qdj...@googlegroups.com
From the sound of it, there is little to gain from wrapping tufao into QDjango: tufao's HTTP support seems more complete. I'd say just use tufao directly for your HTTP support.

Cheers,
Jeremy


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages