We Keep Coding

A good Python web framework for existing console program?

I hope I'm asking on the right StackExchange site.
I've written a console program in Python onto which I'd like to put a web interface, but I'm having a hard time deciding what web framework to choose. I don't need much, but I'd like to avoid unnecessary work in trying to use it. I don't have a need for a database (for now), so that's not important to me at all.
I've looked at Django, Web2py, bottle.py, and web.py.
Django and Web2py seem to be great if I were starting out from scratch, but I'm not, and seems a little difficult to integrate into existing code.
bottle.py and web.py almost seem like they could work out, but they're so basic, I'm hoping there's something else out there that wouldn't require so much in the way of templating as these seem to do.
I don't simply want to make a carbon copy of the console interface put into a browser, but rather customize it for a web interface, so I'm not necessarily looking for anything that would simply wrap a console application into a web interface (although that would be interesting too.)

That's a sort of hard problem... Personally I don't see web.py as all that 'basic' as you put it. It should be really easy to wrap your code in some classes with GET and POST functions and be done.
Also, Django can be 'minified' as it were: How do I write a single-file Django application? is a whole conversation about this.
I would say, what is too 'basic' for you? You mentioned 'templating', but how would something magically template for you? There are open source templates for web apps, things like twitter bootstrap come to mind, that kind of give you a ready-made template for your next web app. Also YUI, and dojo do similar sorts of things (tho have a much different focus, since they are full blown JS frameworks).
That said, there is a brand new project called 'shovel' (here): https://github.com/seomoz/shovel
I haven't used it yet, but it seems to do the wrapping of commands into a web interface for you. which you said would be 'interesting'.
Personally I use web.py for all my web stuff.

I suggest Django. I've used Django both for simple mostly static sites and for sites with a lot of forms and I can't say Django imposes any restrictions or forces you to write hundreds LoC even for simple things. Instead you get nice auto generated administrative interface, built-in ORM, internationalization tools and many other things. Thereby, you have great opportunities to grow functionality of your app. In addition it has such vital thing as up-to-date documentation for every module.
Tutorial takes few hours and gives enough information to start developing full-blown sites.

Thanks the continuation which is implemented in the Nagare framework, you can develop a Web application like a console or desktop UI application: put the console code in a component.Task, then create some components for each interaction, i.e. some views that show the data that you print in your console application and receive some user input back. Then, the Nagare framework takes care of the rest: no need to declare URLS, to pass the context from a page to next...

PyQT can be handy if you are looking to implement it, to quote from the RiverBank PyQT website listed below:
"The QtWebKit module implements a web browser engine based on the WebKit open source browser engine used by Apple's Safari. It allows the methods and properties of Python objects to be published and appear as JavaScript objects to scripts embedded in HTML pages."
Source: http://www.riverbankcomputing.co.uk/software/pyqt/intro
Also, do not give up hope if that does not do the trick, as there is also "Pyjamas" which is very handy! Here is a brief description of it:
"Pyjamas is a Rich Internet Application (RIA) Development Platform for both Web and Desktop.
It contains a Python-to-Javascript compiler, an AJAX framework and a Widget Set API. Pyjamas started life as a Python port of Google Web Toolkit, the Java-to-Javascript compiler. Read the FAQ and the list of features."
source: http://pyjs.org
found via: google.com
I would say that when you are always looking to see what the best to use is, ask your question in google, and look on multiple sites and compare the top results of multiple sites to your question, also, it really depends on what you need and what your strong hand plays better in.

Mixing HTML5 Canvas and Python

I have used both of these (Python and HTML5) seperately, however I'm keen to use the full power of Python over the web using HTML5 to draw things and handle the client side of things. I guess I'm looking for avenues to go down in terms of implementation. Here are some things I'd like to do if possible:
Have very interactive data, which will need to processed server-side by Python but displayed and locally manipulated by HTML5 Canvas.
Clickable components on the HTML5 Canvas which will communicate with the server side.
Is there an implementation that people can recommend? I.e. would Google App Engine be any good. Django? Pyjamas?
Thanks - apologies if this seems a little vague. I'm asking before trying one path to see if there is a heads-up to save time and effort.

The server side is much more developed than the client side in this case. (Rich JS libraries are a newer phenomenon, is all.) Django is an acceptable choice on the server, although I would at least consider Twisted.
My recommendation on the client side:
First choice is paper.js which is a library for manipulating canvas. Excellent performance, allows event binding, rich graphics operations, tutorials are fantastic. Seems to have a very gentle learning curve as well, compared to similar software.
Second choice would be raphael or a similar SVG library. Performance not quite as good as paper.js although it depends a lot on what will be onscreen.
Can you elaborate on what kind of things you will be doing on the client? Number of visible objects, what events will be bound to what objects, types of graphics filters you need, and so on, all inform this choice heavily.
You will probably find yourself fighting to get good graphics performance on the client, so expect to spend a lot of time on that.
Edit: Based on your comments, I think you would find either solution workable, so I would lean toward paper.js only because it's a little more fun, and if you do go somewhere unexpected it will be able to go there with you.
Since your application sounds like it has to do with a lot of charting, I would suggest you check out HighCharts or another charting library, of which there are several, both commercial and non-. HighCharts itself is free for everything except production use in a for-profit application, and reasonably priced otherwise.

I do exactly what you have mentioned using Django on the server side and HTML5 canvas/javascript on the client side. I'm pretty happy with the results but would like to point out that what you do with a Canvas on the client side doesn't have anything to do with what you use on the server side for Python.

A viable approach for a rich client widget like this is to use a stack like:
[ your javascript user interface ]
[ a js lib for your graphics ]
backbone.js for managing your objects client side
django-tastypie for wrapping your django objects in a RESTful API
django for defining your backend

Web Frameworks with site style inbuilt

I hope this isn't knocked for being too general, but... I recently had occasion to learn web2py for a final year university project. In this subject teams of four had 8 weeks to design a web app. Ultimately i found that web2py was quite versatile, with it being very easy to get a site up and running fast, a lot of options (janrain etc) - but the end "style" result relied almost entirely on us.
Amongst the other teams, who used other frameworks (each team a different one on the whole), a few of the sites came out with a very slick polished look, without them having to spend much photoshop/css design time and effort. I got the impression that some frameworks are more "friendly" when it came to out of the box design elements (buttons, navigation options, widgets, base css etc) while others aren't.
I have a python (/C/java) background, and intend to learn PHP some point. What frameworks exist out there that provided a base for site design beyond the bare bones? And to emphasise, I have browsed the python page listing frameworks, i am more interested in the design aspect - even if just to see if my assumption was correct.

I'm not sure other frameworks are necessarily more "friendly" regarding design elements, as the client-side styling is really independent of the server-side framework. You can easily plug in any front-end boilerplate/framework to provide nicer styling, whichever server-side framework you are using. At least among Python frameworks, I think web2py is one of the few to provide any front-end scaffolding application (including some basic styling) at all. With most of the others, you're on your own.
That having been said, web2py will soon be releasing a new mobile-friendly scaffolding application based on Skeleton, with improved styling. Though you can just as easily use other front-end frameworks, such as Twitter Bootstrap, Foundation, HTML5Boilerplate, etc.
web2py also allows for the development and application of layout plugins to easily replace the app's styling. Some examples can be found here and here, and they are also available in the application wizard (demo).

I feel your pain. As a developer coming from the desktop world and doing some web development, I'm used to setting up the appearance of my application at the same time I select and arrange my user interface widgets.
You will just have to accept that browser based software does not work that way. You must separately learn CSS. Hopefully, you'll learn to like this method of specifying the appearance of the application but whether you do or not there really isn't any alternative to this approach in the browser.

So far what I've seen about Yii Framework (PHP) is that it can generate an initial nice Styled Web Application backbone, ready for you to work in it adding your functionality, DBs, User roles, etc. and of course all the freedom to define your own Look and Feel by defining HTML views, CSS, JS, etc.
I'm about to start learning and using a PHP Framework for my next project. I have never yet used a Framework but I have several years using PHP/MySQL.
For some weeks I have researched on PHP Frameworks and there are CakePHP, CodeIgniter, Zend, Yii, Kohana, etc. and I'm leaning to Yii even though CodeIgniter seems to have more followers I'm stubborn on checking out Yii because of the high praise is getting specially in its quality built and performance.
I wouldn't know how good the other PHP frameworks are on the "default visual style" area.

Your question seems too generic. I believe your problem is the template library more than the whole framwework.
Maybe this is what you need: http://beebole.com/pure/. This is a javascript template library that let's you render pure html/css templates without embedded python code (dinamic parts are feeded using json data). In this way you can just take a well designed static website and render them dinamic with whatever web framework you like.

How do I use python for web development without relying on a framework?

I know the various frameworks have their benefits, but I personally want my web development in python to be as straight-forward as possible: less writing to the framework, more writing python.
The only thing I have found so far that lets me do this in the most obvious way possible is web.py but I have slight concerns on its performance.
For those of you using nginx(or another flavour)+mod_wsgi+web.py... how's performance? Can it be improved further?
For those of you who have used web.py, liked the idea and went on to write something better or found something better... care to point me to the source?
I'd like to hear about all the conspicuous, minimal yet powerful approaches.

The way to go is wsgi.
WSGI is the Web Server Gateway Interface. It is a specification for web servers and application servers to communicate with web applications (though it can also be used for more than that). It is a Python standard, described in detail in PEP 333.
All current frameworks support wsgi. A lot of webservers support it also (apache included, through mod_wsgi). It is the way to go if you want to write your own framework.
Here is hello world, written to wsgi directly:
def application(environ, start_response):
status = '200 OK'
response_headers = [('Content-type','text/plain')]
start_response(status, response_headers)
return ['Hello world!\n']
Put this in a file.py, point your mod_wsgi apache configuration to it, and it will run. Pure python. No imports. Just a python function.
If you are really writing your own framework, you could check werkzeug. It is not a framework, but a simple collection of various utilities for WSGI applications and has become one of the most advanced WSGI utility modules. It includes a powerful debugger, full featured request and response objects, HTTP utilities to handle entity tags, cache control headers, HTTP dates, cookie handling, file uploads, a powerful URL routing system and a bunch of community contributed addon modules. Takes the boring part out of your hands.

It's hilarious how, even prompted with a question asking how to write without a framework, everyone still piles in to promote their favourite framework. The OP whinges about not wanting a “heavyweight framework”, and the replies mention Twisted, of all things?! Come now, really.
Yes, it is perfectly possible to write straight WSGI apps, and grab bits of wanted functionality from standalone modules, instead of fitting your code into one particular framework's view of the world.
To take this route you'll generally want to be familiar with the basics of HTTP and CGI (since WSGI inherits an awful lot from that earlier specification). It's not necessarily an approach to recommend to beginners, but it's quite doable.
I'd like to hear about all the conspicuous, minimal yet powerful approaches
You won't hear about them, because no-one has a tribal interest in promoting “do it yourself” as a methodology. Me, I use a particular standalone templating package, a particular standalone form-reading package, a particular data access layer, and a few home-brew utility modules. I'm not writing to one particular philosophy I can proselytise about, they're all just boring tools that could be swapped out and replaced with something else just as good.

You could also check cherrypy. The focus of cherrypy is in being a framework that lets you write python. Cherrypy has its own pretty good webserver, but it is wsgi-compatible so you can run cherrypy applications in apache via mod_wsgi. Here is hello world in cherrypy:
import cherrypy
class HelloWorld(object):
def index(self):
return "Hello World!"
index.exposed = True
cherrypy.quickstart(HelloWorld())

+1 to all the answers with WSGI.
Eric Florenzo wrote a great blog post lately you should read: Writing Blazing Fast, Infinitely Scalable, Pure-WSGI Utilities. This will give you a better idea of pure WSGI beyond Hello World. Also pay attention to the comments, especially the first comment by Kevin Dangoor where he recommends at least adding WebOb to your toolset.

For what it's worth, I wrote my website in mod_python without any intervening framework like Django. I didn't really have any reason to complain. (Well maybe a little, mod_python is kind of quirky in a few ways but not in the common use cases) One thing's for sure, it will definitely let you write Python ;-)

Why do you have concerns about web.py's performance? As I mentioned here, we use CherryPy (the web server "built into" web.py) behind nginx to serve most of the HTML at Oyster.com -- nginx splits the traffic across 2 or 3 web servers each running 4 Python processes, and we can easily handle 100s of requests per second.
Oyster.com is a high-volume website averaging 200,000 dynamically-generated pageviews/day, and peaking to much higher numbers than that. However, we do use a content delivery network (CDN) for our static resources like images and CSS.
We definitely care about performance (most of our pages render in less than 25ms), but web.py isn't the bottleneck. Our bottlenecks are template rendering (we use Cheetah, which is fast enough but not other-worldly fast) and database queries (we cache heavily and keep the number of database queries per page to 0 or 1) and accessing our 3rd-party hotel pricing providers (these are accessed when you do a search with dates we don't already have cached).
Remember, premature optimization is the root of all evil -- unless you're serving google.com, web.py will probably work for you.

I've written a few small web applications using mod-python and PSP -- mod-python's equivalent to php.
In one case, I wrote a web page that generates release notes by inspecting our source code repository. I rewrote it into PHP, and was surprised to discover that the PSP version was about 20% faster, as well as being about half as many lines of code.
So, for small problems at least, psp has worked well for me.

I think it depends on the definition of what a framework is and what it should do for you.
As pointed out, a very minimal "framework" would be WSGI as it only defines one small interface for interfacing with a web server. But it's a powerful approach because of the middleware you can put between your app and the server.
If you want more slightly more, like some URL to function mapping, then you have some choices, some of which have been already mentioned.
If you go further you might come to Pylons or Turbogears or Django, after that maybe Zope but it grows bigger and maybe the pain as well as you always buy into the opinions of that framework.
What I recently use more and more (coming from Zope/Plone) is repoze.bfg. It's very small, does not come with a ORM bundled (so you can use SQLAlchemy, Storm or simply go to an object database like the ZODB). What it does is basically handling how you come from a URL to a view which is a function. It supports both URL Mapping (a la Routes) or object traversal, which IMHO is very powerful in some circumstances esp. if you have a not so strict mapping. The good thing is that it directly comes with an ACL based security framework which can use if you want to which IMHO is very practical to have. That way you don't need decorators which seem to be used mostly for such things.
And of course it's based on WSGI. Also look for the repoze subversion repository for quite a lot of middleware and the Paste stuff is also very useful for WSGI related tasks.

What's wrong with Django? It doesn't force you to use it's ORM and controllers are just plain Python functions instead of Rails-like class methods. Also, url routing is done with regular expressions instead of another framework-invented syntax. If django seems like too much for you anyway, i recommend taking a look at Werkzeug

I'm pretty fond of Google AppEngine. I use the ORM and templating system, but otherwise follow a REST-patterned design and just implement Python methods for the corresponding HTTP ones. It makes the raw HTTP interaction central, and optionally gives you other things to use. Plus no more configuring and managing your deployment environment!

Pros and Cons of different approaches to web programming in Python

I'd like to do some server-side scripting using Python. But I'm kind of lost with the number of ways to do that.
It starts with the do-it-yourself CGI approach and it seems to end with some pretty robust frameworks that would basically do all the job themselves. And a huge lot of stuff in between, like web.py, Pyroxide and Django.
What are the pros and cons of the frameworks or approaches that you've worked on?
What trade-offs are there?
For what kind of projects they do well and for what they don't?
Edit: I haven't got much experience with web programing yet.
I would like to avoid the basic and tedious things like parsing the URL for parameters, etc.
On the other hand, while the video of blog created in 15 minutes with Ruby on Rails left me impressed, I realized that there were hundreds of things hidden from me - which is cool if you need to write a working webapp in no time, but not that great for really understanding the magic - and that's what I seek now.

CGI is great for low-traffic websites, but it has some performance problems for anything else. This is because every time a request comes in, the server starts the CGI application in its own process. This is bad for two reasons: 1) Starting and stopping a process can take time and 2) you can't cache anything in memory. You can go with FastCGI, but I would argue that you'd be better off just writing a straight WSGI app if you're going to go that route (the way WSGI works really isn't a whole heck of a lot different from CGI).
Other than that, your choices are for the most part how much you want the framework to do. You can go with an all singing, all dancing framework like Django or Pylons. Or you can go with a mix-and-match approach (use something like CherryPy for the HTTP stuff, SQLAlchemy for the database stuff, paste for deployment, etc). I should also point out that most frameworks will also let you switch different components out for others, so these two approaches aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Personally, I dislike frameworks that do too much magic for me and prefer the mix-and-match technique, but I've been told that I'm also completely insane. :)
How much web programming experience do you have? If you're a beginner, I say go with Django. If you're more experienced, I say to play around with the different approaches and techniques until you find the right one.

The simplest web program is a CGI script, which is basically just a program whose standard output is redirected to the web browser making the request. In this approach, every page has its own executable file, which must be loaded and parsed on every request. This makes it really simple to get something up and running, but scales badly both in terms of performance and organization. So when I need a very dynamic page very quickly that won't grow into a larger system, I use a CGI script.
One step up from this is embedding your Python code in your HTML code, such as with PSP. I don't think many people use this nowadays, since modern template systems have made this pretty obsolete. I worked with PSP for awhile and found that it had basically the same organizational limits as CGI scripts (every page has its own file) plus some whitespace-related annoyances from trying to mix whitespace-ignorant HTML with whitespace-sensitive Python.
The next step up is very simple web frameworks such as web.py, which I've also used. Like CGI scripts, it's very simple to get something up and running, and you don't need any complex configuration or automatically generated code. Your own code will be pretty simple to understand, so you can see what's happening. However, it's not as feature-rich as other web frameworks; last time I used it, there was no session tracking, so I had to roll my own. It also has "too much magic behavior" to quote Guido ("upvars(), bah").
Finally, you have feature-rich web frameworks such as Django. These will require a bit of work to get simple Hello World programs working, but every major one has a great, well-written tutorial (especially Django) to walk you through it. I highly recommend using one of these web frameworks for any real project because of the convenience and features and documentation, etc.
Ultimately you'll have to decide what you prefer. For example, frameworks all use template languages (special code/tags) to generate HTML files. Some of them such as Cheetah templates let you write arbitrary Python code so that you can do anything in a template. Others such as Django templates are more restrictive and force you to separate your presentation code from your program logic. It's all about what you personally prefer.
Another example is URL handling; some frameworks such as Django have you define the URLs in your application through regular expressions. Others such as CherryPy automatically map your functions to urls by your function names. Again, this is a personal preference.
I personally use a mix of web frameworks by using CherryPy for my web server stuff (form parameters, session handling, url mapping, etc) and Django for my object-relational mapping and templates. My recommendation is to start with a high level web framework, work your way through its tutorial, then start on a small personal project. I've done this with all of the technologies I've mentioned and it's been really beneficial. Eventually you'll get a feel for what you prefer and become a better web programmer (and a better programmer in general) in the process.

If you decide to go with a framework that is WSGI-based (for instance TurboGears), I would recommend you go through the excellent article Another Do-It-Yourself Framework by Ian Bicking.
In the article, he builds a simple web application framework from scratch.
Also, check out the video Creating a web framework with WSGI by Kevin Dangoor. Dangoor is the founder of the TurboGears project.

If you want to go big, choose Django and you are set. But if you want just to learn, roll your own framework using already mentioned WebOb - this can be really fun and I am sure you'll learn much more (plus you can use components you like: template system, url dispatcher, database layer, sessions, et caetera).
In last 2 years I built few large sites using Django and all I can say, Django will fill 80% of your needs in 20% of time. Remaining 20% of work will take 80% of the time, no matter which framework you'd use.

It's always worth doing something the hard way - once - as a learning exercise. Once you understand how it works, pick a framework that suits your application, and use that. You don't need to reinvent the wheel once you understand angular velocity. :-)
It's also worth making sure that you have a fairly robust understanding of the programming language behind the framework before you jump in -- trying to learn both Django and Python at the same time (or Ruby and Rails, or X and Y), can lead to even more confusion. Write some code in the language first, then add the framework.
We learn to develop, not by using tools, but by solving problems. Run into a few walls, climb over, and find some higher walls!

If you've never done any CGI programming before I think it would be worth doing one project - perhaps just a sample play site just for yourself - using the DIY approach. You'll learn a lot more about how all the various parts work than you would by using a framework. This will help in you design and debug and so on all your future web applications however you write them.
Personally I now use Django. The real benefit is very fast application deployment. The object relational mapping gets things moving fast and the template library is a joy to use. Also the admin interface gives you basic CRUD screens for all your objects so you don't need to write any of the "boring" stuff.
The downside of using an ORM based solution is that if you do want to handcraft some SQL, say for performance reasons, it much harder than it would have been otherwise, although still very possible.

If you are using Python you should not start with CGI, instead start with WSGI (and you can use wsgiref.handlers.CGIHandler to run your WSGI script as a CGI script. The result is something that is basically as low-level as CGI (which might be useful in an educational sense, but will also be somewhat annoying), but without having to write to an entirely outdated interface (and binding your application to a single process model).
If you want a less annoying, but similarly low-level interface, using WebOb would provide that. You would be implementing all the logic, and there will be few dark corners that you won't understand, but you won't have to spend time figuring out how to parse HTTP dates (they are weird!) or parse POST bodies. I write applications this way (without any other framework) and it is entirely workable. As a beginner, I'd advise this if you were interested in understanding what frameworks do, because it is inevitable you will be writing your own mini framework. OTOH, a real framework will probably teach you good practices of application design and structure. To be a really good web programmer, I believe you need to try both seriously; you should understand everything a framework does and not be afraid of its internals, but you should also spend time in a thoughtful environment someone else designed (i.e., an existing framework) and understand how that structure helps you.

OK, rails is actually pretty good, but there is just a little bit too much magic going on in there (from the Ruby world I would much prefer merb to rails). I personally use Pylons, and am pretty darn happy. I'd say (compared to django), that pylons allows you to interchange ints internal parts easier than django does. The downside is that you will have to write more stuff all by youself (like the basic CRUD).
Pros of using a framework:
get stuff done quickly (and I mean lighning fast once you know the framework)
everything is compying to standards (which is probably not that easy to achieve when rolling your own)
easier to get something working (lots of tutorials) without reading gazillion articles and docs
Cons:
you learn less
harder to replace parts (not that much of an issue in pylons, more so with django)
harder to tweak some low-level stuff (like the above mentioned SQLs)
From that you can probably devise what they are good for :-) Since you get all the code it is possible to tweak it to fit even the most bizzare situations (pylons supposedly work on the Google app engine now...).

For smaller projects, rolling your own is fairly easy. Especially as you can simply import a templating engine like Genshi and get alot happening quite quickly and easily. Sometimes it's just quicker to use a screwdriver than to go looking for the power drill.
Full blown frameworks provide alot more power, but do have to be installed and setup first before you can leverage that power. For larger projects, this is a negligible concern, but for smaller projects this might wind up taking most of your time - especially if the framework is unfamiliar.