3 ms·
I also like the way bottle handles static files and apps compared to flask. I lost flask when it went into blueprints. Bottle seems more intuitive, though there
by rushabh 15y ago
I also like the way bottle handles static files and apps compared to flask. I lost flask when it went into blueprints. Bottle seems more intuitive, though there is not much difference.
- DasIch 15y agoYou can write Flask applications without ever having heard of the term blueprint. I don't see how they could complicate things.
- rushabh 15y agoIf you are planning to have a lot of functionality, i.e. routings, you need some way to modularise. Bottle does seem to have a more pythonic way. Flask creates new concepts that seem counter intuitive to me at the first look.
- the_mitsuhiko 15y ago> Flask creates new concepts that seem counter intuitive to me at the first look. You don't have to use them. Just do the Bottle way if you prefer.
- DasIch 15y agoBottle has no concept at all for this, besides sticking independent applications together. You can do that with Flask as well, in fact the documentation there is an entire document describing various approaches[1]. Blueprints are a "new" concept but the approach is basically the same, however they are able to interact with the application at a Flask-level, they can modify the application and share information like the configuration. This is something Bottle doesn't support at a framework level, forcing you to abuse the functionality it provides from a semantical standpoint. This concept is more difficult to understand but than again it is very trivial compared to other concepts any web developer should grasp. [1]: http://flask.pocoo.org/docs/patterns/appdispatch/ http://flask.pocoo.org/docs/patterns/appdispatch/