We Keep Coding

Which python project to choose for a database-heavy application

I plan to develop a rather database heavy (~100 tables) web application in python. The focus is on providing a nice and task-optimized interface for people that edit or navigate through the data. Other focuses are:
Handle lots of data and complex queries.
Internationalization (translation, timezones, currencies)
Mailings (bulk emailing as well as notifications)
Easy integration into other websites (pull data from or push data to the application)
A role based authentication scheme. (ideally enforcing one role at a time)
It should be easy and fast (for python programmers) to create custom forms and workflows to work with the data.
I've read a lot about django, turbogears, pyramid, webcore, … but I'm still having a hard time to figure out where to start.
My current evaluation would suggest that turbogears is the way to go. Pyramid seems too much to learn about. Django seems to be too publishing focused. WebCore seems a bit to immature to base such a project on it.
Am I overlooking something? Are there other more suitable python frameworks? Is my information about some of them plain wrong? Which framework would you choose for this project, and why?

Imo the only part of django that might be "too" publishing orientated is the admin, but I have seen plenty of django applications doing stuff neatly.
Django has plenty of apps available covering what you want to do, but the only road block you might find is the part of: handle lots of data and complex queries. You will probably move out of django ORM land, but you might even move out of SQLAlchemy land too. Most of these projects use ORM's, so I would look into SQLAlchemy first, and evaluate how to use it for your needs.
Second, I would just go through the tutorials of the following projects, reading about them is good, but a small little tutorial/project (or mini prototype) is the only way to see if the project fits your programming style: pyramid, turbogears, and django. They have afaik the largest communities. The best tool will be the one you feel more confortable with. They all have good, excellent documentation, good supportive communities, and are mature enough for solid projects, and for very subtle differences, you probably can use any of them for your needs.

I have to agree with you: if you already have a database model, Django is not potentially the best way to go.
As of database binding, SQL Alchemy is definitely worth checking out, regardless of which framework you choose.
Some additions to your list:
Web.py - A little low-level, but a nice, mature framework (for SQLAlchemy usage, see cookbook on SQLAlchemy)
Tornado - Very good performance, supports Websockets which could be of a concern for some applications.
Edit: nowadays I would recommended Flask instead of Web.py. Tornado works really nicely with it as well.

The number of tables is not relevant for speeds etc. and not relevant for the choice of the framework. Recommendation: use SQLAlchemy as ORM between database and application. Go for Pyramid as web framework. Pyramid is easy, well-documented, test and very flexible in all aspects. Forms etc. can be easily created using "colander" + "deform" add-ons.

My gut says you want to use SQLAlchemy as the ORM. Turbogears does this out of the box, and probably is the largest player in the "not Django" space.
There was some work on pulling in SQLAlchemy for (or in addition to!) Django's ORM, but I don't know how current that work is (a quick google search found articles from 2008-2009 as the top hits)

Rails or Pylons -- Any good framework for Python?

I have no background in web applications, but have a fairly experience background in C++, and a quick learner.
I have spent some time learning Python and reading through SQLAlchemy. I kind of like the idea of coding in pure Python OO, and then use a nice SQLAlchemy mapper to persist everything. I like this decoupled approach (using pure Python classes along a mapper function to talk to DB) better than the ActiveRecord idea of Rails. I think eventually I would have more control over connecting the DB to the app. (I need to work with a DB that is updated by a background process. Something like a web crawler that fills the DB.)
At the same time, some stuff makes me think again about Rails. Like streamlined Email and Ajax handling in Rails.
Am I thinking the right way, that Rails is less flexible for Form Validation Manipulations, and working with DB? And is it harder in Pylons to handle Email (notifications), RSS, Ajax?
What would you suggest?
Thanks

Have a look at Django. It sounds like this exactely what you are looking for :-).

Have a look at these Python frameworks:
Django: Probably the single most popular Python framework, but for better (and worse) is very-much a full-stack solution.
Pylons: As reaction to the Django One Way of working, Pylons, for better (and worse), uses a much looser binding of the modules that make up your framework.
TurboGears: As an attempt at a happy medium between Django and Pylons, TurboGears is based on Pylons, but comes ready made with certain component choices, and the glue to hold it together.
Zope: Zope is more of an application server and framework than a "web framework". It just happens to be web based.
The first three are all inspired by Ruby on Rails, but each has it's own ideas for improvement. Zope predates Rails, and is it's own world.
I've used TurboGears to develop a few small apps. Kinda nice. At the time, their docs were kinda bad. I hope that's changed.
I've also directly used Python Paste a few times. Paste is the HTTP server base upon which Pylons, and in turn TurboGears, is based. Again very nice.
Also: When given the choice, I've always used SQLAlchemy as an ORM. It's truly an impressive piece of software that I've used for even non-web projects.
Hope this helps. Let us know what path you take. :-)

Rails is written in Ruby, not Python. If you have your heart set on Python, then go with Django. But please give Rails a fair shake; ActiveRecord is not the only ORM available either. I use DataMapper for some apps too. I may be biased, but I'm inclined to think the Rails ecosystem is bigger than that of Django too.

If you are looking for a project similar to rails, you should check out Masonite, A modern and developer-centric web framework in Python

You should also checkout web2py instead of Django. Just an alternative you might consider.
Here's two "A vs. B" articles and discussions regarding the two:
Django vs. web2py
Reddit.com community discussion

I wrote a few websites in Pylons over the years and I like it a lot. The great things about Pylons is that it consists mostly of third party libraries. That means that you're learning many useful libraries that can be used in you other projects, for example SQLAlchemy, WebOb, FormEncode, Beaker, Mako and so on ... Especially SQLAlchemy and Beaker are extremely useful in pretty much any context.

You could also have a look to Nagare, another full stack framework.
Some of Nagare based projects already in production can be found on the Nagare web site.

I used Web2Py for many small projects, including many goodies such as the "Workers" & Scheduler concepts, some event-driven updates in web page through the short tornado example in websocket_messaging.py. If you're looking for a small but powerful development framework that includes a small DB and display tables, it's just amazing. You even do not need to write a single HTML line. I do not see any competitor in this area. In my opinion it's far easier and faster than django, but django might provide much freedom in complex apps.

Understanding Zope internals, from Django eyes

I am a newbie to zope and I previously worked on Django for about 2.5 years. So when I first jumped into Zope(v2) (only because my new company is using it since 7 years), I faced these questions. Please help me in understanding them.
What is the "real" purpose of zodb as such? I know what it does, but tell me one great thing that zodb does and a framework like Django (which doesn't have zodb) misses.
Update: Based on the answers, Zodb replaces the need for ORM. You can directly store the object inside the db(zodb itself).
It is said one of the zope's killer feature is the TTW(Through the Web or Developing using ZMI) philosophy. But I(and any developer) prefers File-System based development(using Version control, using Eclipse, using any favorite tool outside Zope). Then where is this TTW actually used?
This is the big one. What "EXTRA Stuff" does Zope's Acquistion gain when compared to Python/Django Inheritance.
Is it really a good move to come to Zope, from Django ?
Any site like djangosnippets.org for Zope(v2)?

First things first: current zope2 versions include all of zope3, too. And if you look at modern zope2 applications like Plone, you'll see that it uses a lot of "zope 3" (now called the "zope tool kit", ZTK) under the hood.
The real purpose of the ZODB: it is one of the few object databases (as opposed to relational SQL databases) that sees real widespread use. You can "just" store all your python objects in there without needing to use an object-relational mapper. No "select * from xyz" under the hood. And adding a new attribute on a zodb object "just" persists that change. Luxurious! Especially handy when your data cannot be handily mapped to a strict relational database. If you can map it easily: just use such a database, I've used sqlalchemy a few times in zope projects.
TTW: we've come back from that. At least, the zope2 way of TTW indeed has all the drawbacks that you fear. No version control, no outside tools, etc. Plone is experimenting (google for "dexterity") with nice explicit zope 3 ways of doing TTW development that can still be mapped back to the filesystem.
TTW: the zodb makes it easy and cheap to store all sorts of config settings in the database, so you can typically adjust a lot of things through the browser. This doesn't really count as typical TTW development, though.
Acquisition: handy trick, though it leads to a huge namespace polution. Double edged sword. To improve debuggability and maintenance we try to do without in most of the cases. The acquisition happens inside the "object graph", so think "folder structure inside the zope site". A call to "contact_form" three folders down can still find the "contact_form" on the root of the site if it isn't found somewhere in between. Double edged sword!
(And regular python object oriented inheritance happens all over the place of course).
Moving from django to zope: a really good idea for certain problems and nonsensical for other problems :-) Quite a lot of zope2/plone companies have actually done some django projects for specific projects, typically those that have 99% percent of their content in a relatively straightforward SQL database. If you're more into content management, zope (and plone) is probably better.
Additional tip: don't focus only on zope2. Zope3's "component architecture" has lots of functionality for creating bigger applications (also non-web). Look at grok (http://grok.zope.org) for a friendly packaged zope, for instance. The pure component architecture is also usable inside django projects.

On the ZODB:
Another way to ask "What is the real purpose of the ZODB?" is to ask, "Why was the ZODB originally created?"
The answer to that is the project was started very early on, around 1996. This was before the existance of MySQL or PostgreSQL, when miniSQL (a free-to-use but not free software) database was still in common use, or big money databases such as Oracle. Python provided the pickle module to serialize Python objects to disk - but serialization is lower level, it doesn't allow for features such as transactions, concurrent writes, and replication. This is what the ZODB provides.
It's still in use today in Zope because it works well. If you have no existing skillset in realational databases, it's easier to learn to use the ZODB than a relational database. It's also usable simpler use-cases, for example if you have a command-line script that needs to store some configuration information, using a relational database means having to run a database server just to store a little bit of configuraiton. You could use a config file, but the ZODB also works quite nicely because it's an embedable database. That means that the database is running in the same process as the rest of your Python code.
It's also worth noting that the API used to store objects inside containers is different between Zope 2 and Zope 3. In Zope 2, containers are stored as attributes:
root.mycontainer.myattr
In Zope 3, they use the same interface as Python standard dictionary type:
root['mycontainer']myattr
This is another reason why it can be easier to learn to use the ZODB than the Django ORM, since Django has it's own interface for it's ORM which is distinct from Python's existing interfaces.
Through-the-web (TTW):
Again, understanding the reason for TTW goes back when Zope was developed. While it seems silly to break with well known developer tools such Subversion or Mercurial, Zope was developed in the late 90s when the only free version control system was CVS. Zope 2 had it's own simple version control capabilites, and they were as good as CVS (which is to say, "they were limited and sucky."). UNIX workstations cost a lot more money back then, and had far fewer resources, so System Administrators were much more guarded and careful about how servers were managed. TTW allowed people who might not normally be able to upload code to the server with sysadmin intervation a way to do that.
With text editors, emacs and vi have had ftp-modes, and Zope 2 can listen on an FTP port. This would allow you to develop so that code was stored in the ZODB (editable TTW), but it was common to edit this code using a emacs or vi.
Today in Zope, TTW is more rarely used or promoted since it no longer makes sense to do this. Disk space is cheap, servers are (relatively) cheap, and there are lots of developer tools which expect to interact with the standard filesystem.
Acquisition:
It was a mistake. It was a very confusing feature that caused lots of unexpected things to happen. In theory there are some interesting ideas to acquisition, but in practice it's best tossed in the bin and has little practical use.
Moving from Django to Zope:
Work started on Zope 3 in 2001. This fixed a lot of the problems with Zope 2. It's a testament to the Zope community that Zope 2 is still actively and well maintained, but it's hardly state-of-the-art. Zope 2 is really only interesting to learn from a historical perspective.
Zope 3 ended up getting evolved in a few different directions, and so modern incarnations of Zope are best expressed in the form of Grok, BFG or Bobo.
Grok is closest to Zope 3, and as such is a pretty large framework - it can be rather overwhelming at times when delving through it's code base. However, just like Django, or any other full-stack framework you don't need to use every part of Grok, it can be quite easy to learn the basic and create web applications with it. It's convention-over-configuration is second to none, and it's class-based Views give it a much tighter, arguably cleaner code base than a Django web application. It's URL routing system is extremely flexible, but also arguably over-engineered.
BFG is a "pay for only what you eat" framework written by long time Zope developer Chris McDonough. As such, it's closer to Pylons in spirit, where only the parts deemed core or essential to a framework are included. It also plays very well with WSGI. It only uses a few core Zope packages.
Bobo is a "micro-framework". It's just a way to route URLs and serve up an app. It doesn't use any Zope packages, so isn't strictly in the Zope family of web frameworks. But it was written by Zope's creator, Jim Fulton, who originally called the publishing part of Zope, "Bobo". The original Bobo, written in the early 90's, mapped URLs to packages and modules, so if your source code was layed out as:
mypackage.mymodule.MyClass
You could have a URL such as:
/mypackage/mymodule/MyClass
Which was very inflexible, and was replaced with URL Traversel in Zope 2, which is fairly complex. Bobo uses Routes, so it's a middle ground between dead-simple URL resolution and complex URL resolution - about the same in complexity as Django's URL resolution machinery.

I answer without much experience on both, but I had the chance to manipulate both, so I can tell you my opinion on some of your questions.
1)What is the "real" purpose of zodb
as such? Meaning I know what it does,
but tell me one great thing that zodb
does and a framework like django(which
doesn't have zodb) misses
Load distribution via ZEO and search via ZCatalog. Django is very low level on this point of view. To achieve the same, you would have to reimplement a lot of wheels, triangular.
Something I learned quite soon is: don't mess with low level database issues. You will screw them up. It's a can of worms, Dune sized.
So why choose django ORM ? You should also consider if YAGNI. django is easy and self contained, documentation is premium, and when (if) your site will grow that much, you will do the switch to a better ORM (or to a pure OODB, in case of ZODB) later on.
2)It is said one of the zope's killer
feature is the TTW(Through the Web or
Developing using ZMI) philosophy. But
I(and any developer) prefers
File-System based development(using
Version control, using Eclipse, using
any favorite tool outside Zope). Then
where is this TTW actually used?
I cannot answer properly to this question, but I would not say that it's fundamentally bad to develop with such approach. Of course it's a change of mindset, and I tend to prefer filesystem based development as well.
4)Is it really a good move to work on
Zope, from Django ?
Zope 3 is very modular, so you are free to use many of its components from django. I would advise against it though. You can, of course, but what I found most problematic is the lack of help. There are not many people using zope components and django at the same time. Sooner or later, you will have a problem and google won't help. At that point, you will realize that if your life was a videogame, you are definitely playing it at level difficult (maybe extreme, if you will have to put your nose into the zope code).

A very good reference on ZODB is ZODB/ZEO programmer's guide. ZODB is not an ORM. Its a true object database. Python objects are persisted inside the database transparently without any worries about how to transform them into a representation suitable for database. Any pickleable Python object can be saved inside the ZODB. Relational databases are suitable for large amount of flat data (like employee records) while ZODB is best for hierarchical data (typically found in web applications). I personally use Zope 3 for my applications. I never did TTW type of work. Best part of using ZODB was the fact that I never had to worry at all about how I am going to save data and how things would change when I upgrade my software from one version to next one. For example, if I add a new attribute to a Python class, all I have to do is provide a default value as a class attribute. It then becomes automatically available to all objects created with the previous version of the same class. Removing an attribute is a simple del operation on existing objects. BTW, ZODB can be used independently in any kind of Python application and isn't coupled with just ZOPE platform. I love the fact that I don't have to worry about the nitty gritties of SQL while working on Python applications thanx to ZODB. And off course if you need a database server so that you can run multiple copies of your application backed by the same server ZEO comes to your rescue on top of ZODB.
Zope started with the idea of being an Object Publishing Environment. From that perspective mapping the URL directly to the object hierarchy in ZODB was great. The URLs simply reflect the hierarchy of objects. Now so far as figuring out the URL is considered, there is always the Rotterdam debugging interface for help. For development work, I keep the development flags on in the zope configuration and look at the contents of ZODB through the Rotterdam interface. Rotterdam skin provide a great way of introspecting the Python objects stored inside the ZODB and figuring out the URLs is much more interactive. Moreover, for major containers inside my ZODB, I register them as persistent utilities inside the site manager (Zope 3 sites and site managers). Anywhere in my code, whenever I need access to such containers, all I do is getUtility(IMyContainerType). I don't even have to remember the detailed locations of those containers inside the code base. They are once registered with the site manager and going forward available anywhere inside the code base through getUtility() calls.
And the URLs also support namespaces. For example using the ++skin++ namespace, you can anytime change the skin of your web application. Using the ++language++ namespace, you can any time change the preferred language of your user interface. Using the ++attributes++ namespace you can access individual attributes of an object. URLs are simply much more powerful and much more customizable. And you can write traversal adapters, define your own namespaces, to enhance the capabilities of your URLs. To give an example, all pages which are directly accessible from the web interface, are part of my default skin. While all pages which are invoked through background AJAX calls, are under a different skin. This way, one can implement different ways of authentication mechanisms in different skins. In main skin, one is redirected to a different login page in case of authentication failure. For AJAX pages, one could simply receive an HTTP error. This could be centrally done. Zope 3 objects have interfaces and one view can be defined for multiple interfaces. Wherever you have an object which supports the given interface, all associated views become automatically available and all such URLs are automatically valid. If you think about it, its a much more powerful than a single python file or XML file where the URLs are hard-coded. I don't really know much about DJango and J2EE so cannot say if they have equivalent capability.

ZODB is a OO-style database that doesn't need a schema definition. You can simply create (nearly) all kinds of objects, and persist them.
The TTW is sometimes annoying, but you can mount the ZOPE-object-tree using webdav. Then you can edit the templates and scripts using your favorite editor.
ZOPE is especially powerful for creating CMS-like systems, IMHO there it is still unmatched - you'd have to go through a lot to make it work equally well in Django.
And through the TTW, actually non-developers like designers have a good chance of developing e.g. templates and CSS without need for developer interaction.

+1 on Wheat's answer, above: "Zope 2 is really only interesting to learn from a historical perspective". I did Zope dev for a large site for a couple of years, 50% zope 2, 50% zope 3. Even then (this was 2 years ago) we were working to migrate everything off of zope 2. Unless you already have a lot invested in an existing Zope 2 project, there's no reason to use it; there's just not much of future there. And if you do have a big existing zope 2 project, I'd suggest taking a look at a product caled Five (a joke: 2 + 3 = 5) that aims to
allow you to integrate Zope 3
technologies into Zope 2. Among
others, it allows you to use Zope 3
interfaces, ZCML-based configuration,
adapters, browser pages (including
skins, layers, and resources),
automated add and edit forms based on
schemas, object events, as well as
Zope 3-style i18n message catalogs.
When all is said and done, Zope 3 is a very different framework from 2, and IMHO, a much better (albeit more complicated) one. TTW is optional, and not recommended for most cases. Implicit acquisition is gone.
Looks like people here have covered why you might want to use the ZODB, so I thought I'd mention one other thing about Zope 3 (or Zope 2 using Five) that's good. Zope has a very powerful system for wiring together different application components called the Zope Component Architecture (ZCA). It allows you to write components that are more or less autonomous and reusable, and which can be plugged together in a standardized way. I mostly do Django development now and I sometimes find myself missing the ZCA. In Django, the ability to write reusable components is limited and kind of ad-hoc. But, like Reinout says zope.component (like most zope packages, including the ZODB) works outside of the zope framework and could be used in a Django project.
That said, the ZCA has its drawbacks, one of which is the tedious process of registering your components in XML files; it always felt a little Java-esqe to me. One reason I really like Grok http://grok.zope.org/ is that it sits on top of zope.component and does much of that grunt work for you.
So bottom line: Zope 2 is mostly a dead end. If your employer is amenable to it, start looking at Zope 3, or at least Five. I think you'll find Zope 3 has a steep learning curve compared to Django, so it might be a good idea to come at it via Grok, which smooths out a lot of Zope 3's rougher edges. But, I think for a really large or complex web application with lots of moving parts, I'd go for Zope over Django (and I say this as someone who really likes Django a lot). For smaller projects, Django would probably be faster. Quantifying "large" and "small" in this context is hard though, and would probably require a couple of thousand more words. If you really are interested in Zope 3, the book by Philipp von Weitershausen is definitely the place to start.

Can anyone point out the pros and cons of TG2 over Django?

Django is my favorite python web framework. I've tried out others like pylons, web2py, nevow and others.
But I've never looked into TurboGears with much enthusiasm.
Now with TG2 out of beta I may give it a try. I'd like to know what are some of the pros and cons compared to Django.

TG2 has several advantages that I think are important:
Multi-database support
sharding/data partitioning support
longstanding support for aggregates, multi-column primary keys
a transaction system that handles multi-database transactions for you
an admin system that works with all of the above
out of the box support for reusable template snipits
an easy method for creating reusable template tag-libraries
more flexibility in using non-standard components
There are more, but I think it's also important to know that Django has some advantages over TG2:
Larger, community, more active IRC channel
more re-usable app-components
a bit more developed documentation
All of this means that it's a bit easier to get started in Django than TG2, but I personally think the added power and flexibility that you get is worth it. But your needs may always be different.

TG2 takes Pylons and changes some defaults - object dispatching instead of Routes, and Genshi instead of Mako. They believe there's only one way to do it, so apps can rely on the same API for any TurboGears website.
Similarities
TG2 and Django both distinguish between websites and components, so you'll eventually see reusable building blocks for TurboGears, too.
Differences
Django uses its own handlers for HTTP, routing, templating, and persistence. Django also has stellar documentation and an established community.
TurboGears defaults to best-of-breed libraries, which apparently are Paste, object dispatching, Genshi, and SqlAlchemy. This philosophy produces a better all-round toolset, but at the risk of instability - because it means throwing away backwards compatibility if and when better libraries appear.

Pros.
SQLAlchemy > django ORM
Multiple template languages out of the box (genshi,mako,jinja2)
more WSGI friendly
Object Dispatch > routes > regexp routing. You can get the first 2 with TG2
Almost all components are optional you can keep the core and use any ORM, template, auth library, etc.
Sprox > django forms
Cons.
- Admin is more basic (no inline objects yet!)
- less third party apps
- "app" system still in the making.
- given it's modularity you need to read documentation from different sources (SQLAlchemy, Genshi or Mako, repoze.who, Pylons, etc.)

I was struggling with the same question months ago and decided for Turbogears 2, and my reasoning was simple. "I'm new to python, I want to learn it not just for web-projects but as a substitute to php for scripting small helpers"
What I didn't like about Django, to me looks like a "close platform". ORM, Template system, sessions, etc they all are Django's
On the other hand, Turbogears 2 uses already known open platforms and just glued them, just like Appfuse does it for Java
With TurboGears 2 I learn SQLAlchemy that I can use later for small python scripts, or from the python shell to solve common tasks.
Main drawbacks are the lack of complete documentation and error messages.
Sometimes you have to search very deep to find simple solutions, the learning curve is steep, but it pays long term. The error messages where to me very confusing (coming from more than 10 years in Java development). I had lost many hours trying to find an "ascii encode error" when the real problem was a module not being imported.
That's my opinion, just remember I'm new to python and I could be wrong about many things stated here.

Besides what Nikhil gave in his answer, I think another minor difference is that Turbogears provdes some support for javascript widgets and integration with Mochikit.
Whereas Django steadfastly remains javascript framework neutral.
(At least this was true with older versions of Turbogears... this might have changed with TG2)
Edit: I just went over TG2 documentation and see that it did indeed change. Turbogears now uses ToscaWidgets which can use jQuery, ExtJS, Dojo, etc. underneath. This nicely makes it more framework neutral while still providing nice javascript widgets.
This strikes me as a pro for Turbogears if you don't have any javascript experience and a pro for Django if you are writing a lot of specialized javascript.

One of the most important questions is not just what technical features this platform provides or that platform provides, but the driving philosophy of the open source project and the nature of the community supporting it.
I've got no dog in this fight myself, but I found Mark Ramm's talk at DjangoCon 2008 to be very interesting on this point (Google will yield no end of subsequent discussion, no doubt).

Because Django uses its own ORM it limits you to learn that ORM for that specific web framework. I think using an web framework with a more popular ORM (like SqlAlchemy which TG uses) increases your employability chances. Just my 2 cents ..

Last I checked, django has a very poor data implementation. And that's a huge weakness in my book. Django's orm doesn't allow me to use the power of the underlying database. For example I can't use compound primary keys, which are important to good db design. It also doesn't support more than a single database, which is not a big deal until you really need it and find that you can't do it without resorting to doing it manually. Lastly if you have to make changes to your database structure in a team-friendly way, you have to try to choose between a set of 3rd party migration tools.
Turbogears seems to be more architecturally sound, doing its best to integrate individual tools that are awesome in their own right. And because TG is more of an integrator, you're able to switch out pieces to suit your preferences. Don't like SQL Alchemy? You can use SQLObject. Don't like Genshi templates? You can use Mako or even django's, although you're not exactly stuck with the default on django either.
Time for tg2's cons:
TG has a much smaller community, and community usually has its benefit.
Django has a much better name. I really like that name ;-)
Django seems simpler for the beginning web developer, with pretty cool admin tools.
TG has decent documentation, but you also need to go to Genshi's site to learn Genshi, SQL Alchemy's site to learn that, etc. Django has great docs.
My 2 cents.

Does Django development provide a truly flexible 3 layer architecture?

A few weeks ago I asked the question "Is a PHP, Python, PostgreSQL design suitable for a non-web business application?" Is a PHP, Python, PostgreSQL design suitable for a business application?
A lot of the answers recommended skipping the PHP piece and using Django to build the application. As I've explored Django, I've started to question one specific aspect of my goals and how Django comes into play for a non-web business application.
Based on my understanding, Django would manage both the view and controller pieces and PostgreSQL or MySQL would handle the data. But my goal was to clearly separate the layers so that the database, domain logic, and presentation could each be changed without significantly affecting the others. It seems like I'm only separating the M from the VC layers with the Django solution.
So, is it counterproductive for me to build the domain layer in Python with an SQL Alchemy/Elixir ORM tool, PostgreSQL for the database layer, and then still use Django or PHP for the presentation layer? Is this possible or pure insanity?
Basically, I'd be looking at an architecture of Django/PHP > Python/SQLAlchemy > PostgreSQL/MySQL.
Edit: Before the fanboys get mad at me for asking a question about Django, just realize: It's a question, not an accusation. If I knew the answer or had my own opinion, I wouldn't have asked!

You seem to be saying that choosing Django would prevent you from using a more heterogenous solution later. This isn't the case. Django provides a number of interesting connections between the layers, and using Django for all the layers lets you take advantage of those connections. For example, using the Django ORM means that you get the great Django admin app almost for free.
You can choose to use a different ORM within Django, you just won't get the admin app (or generic views, for example) along with it. So a different ORM takes you a step backward from full Django top-to-bottom, but it isn't a step backward from other heterogenous solutions, because those solutions didn't give you intra-layer goodness the admin app in the first place.
Django shouldn't be criticized for not providing a flexible architecture: it's as flexible as any other solution, you just forgo some of the Django benefits if you choose to swap out a layer.
If you choose to start with Django, you can use the Django ORM now, and then later, if you need to switch, you can change over to SQLalchemy. That will be no more difficult than starting with SQLalchemy now and later moving to some other ORM solution.
You haven't said why you anticipate needing to swap out layers. It will be a painful process no matter what, because there is necessarily much code that relies on the behavior of whichever toolset and library you're currently using.

Django will happily let you use whatever libraries you want for whatever you want to use them for -- you want a different ORM, use it, you want a different template engine, use it, and so on -- but is designed to provide a common default stack used by many interoperable applications. In other words, if you swap out an ORM or a template system, you'll lose compatibility with a lot of applications, but the ability to take advantage of a large base of applications typically outweighs this.
In broader terms, however, I'd advise you to spend a bit more time reading up on architectural patterns for web applications, since you seem to have some major conceptual confusion going on. One might just as easily say that, for example, Rails doesn't have a "view" layer since you could use different file systems as the storage location for the view code (in other words: being able to change where and how the data is stored by your model layer doesn't mean you don't have a model layer).
(and it goes without saying that it's also important to know why "strict" or "pure" MVC is an absolutely horrid fit for web applications; MVC in its pure form is useful for applications with many independent ways to initiate interaction, like a word processor with lots of toolbars and input panes, but its benefits quickly start to disappear when you move to the web and have only one way -- an HTTP request -- to interact with the application. This is why there are no "true" MVC web frameworks; they all borrow certain ideas about separation of concerns, but none of them implement the pattern strictly)

You seem to be confusing "separate layers" with "separate languages/technologies." There is no reason you can't separate your concerns appropriately within a single programming language, or within an appropriately modular framework (such as Django). Needlessly multiplying programming languages / frameworks is just needlessly multiplying complexity, which is likely to slow down your initial efforts so much that your project will never reach the point where it needs a technology switch.

You've effectively got a 3 layer architecture whether you use Django's ORM or SQLAlchemy, though your forgo some of the Django's benefits if you choose the latter.

Based on my understanding, Django would manage both the view and controller pieces and PostgreSQL or MySQL would handle the data.
Not really, Django has its own ORM, so it does separate data from view/controller.
here's an entry from the official FAQ about MVC:
Where does the “controller” fit in, then? In Django’s case, it’s probably the framework itself: the machinery that sends a request to the appropriate view, according to the Django URL configuration.
If you’re hungry for acronyms, you might say that Django is a “MTV” framework – that is, “model”, “template”, and “view.” That breakdown makes much more sense.
At the end of the day, of course, it comes down to getting stuff done. And, regardless of how things are named, Django gets stuff done in a way that’s most logical to us.

There's change and there's change. Django utterly seperates domain model, business rules and presentation. You can change (almost) anything with near zero breakage. And by change I am talking about meaningful end-user focused business change.
The technology mix-n-match in this (and the previous) question isn't really very helpful.
Who -- specifically -- benefits from replacing Django templates with PHP. It's not more productive. It's more complex for no benefit. Who benefits from changing ORM's. The users won't and can't tell.