From kojo.idrissa at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 03:40:13 2014 From: kojo.idrissa at gmail.com (Kojo Idrissa) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 20:40:13 -0500 Subject: [Texas] Good first-timer Django hosting? Message-ID: All, I'm planning to set up a Django site as my personal site/blog, and may build more sites in the future. I've got a hosting account with Hostgator, but I figured I'd ask some more experienced folks who they like for hosting Django (or other Python web stuff)? According to http://djangofriendly.com/hosts/, WebFaction is highly regarded. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? I'm sure this has been asked plenty of times before, but we didn't have our Python Web Meetup this month, so I couldn't ask there. :-) Thanks in advance, Kojo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boydjj at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 04:31:11 2014 From: boydjj at gmail.com (Jeremy Boyd) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:31:11 -0500 Subject: [Texas] Good first-timer Django hosting? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kojo, Glad to hear our conversation at PyTexas is bearing fruit. :) I've been a happy WebFaction customer for years. It's a great way to get started, has a lot of 1-click installers for popular software (including Django). As a beginner, you get a lot of the benefits of a VPS in that you're forced to do some minimal system-level work, but you don't actually have to maintain a box. Their customer service is also supreme. More than once I've had an app shove my memory usage over the limit; rather than charge me a ton extra and let me know, they generally send me a nice note and then eventually just shut off the offending app if it's obvious I'm not paying attention. This is a span of days or weeks of leeway, not minutes or hours. And they are Johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to their forums. If you have an issue they're happy to hop in and look at your code to help out. Other people will surely say you should go with a VPS solution or some PaaS, but those solutions are either too involved or hide away too much of the actual work that goes into maintaining a site. WebFaction hits the Goldilocks spot perfectly IMO. Best of luck, and feel free to email me (or the list! this list needs traffic!) if you have any questions. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Kojo Idrissa wrote: > All, > > I'm planning to set up a Django site as my personal site/blog, and may > build more sites in the future. I've got a hosting account with Hostgator, > but I figured I'd ask some more experienced folks who they like for hosting > Django (or other Python web stuff)? > > According to http://djangofriendly.com/hosts/, WebFaction is highly > regarded. > > Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? > > I'm sure this has been asked plenty of times before, but we didn't have > our Python Web Meetup this month, so I couldn't ask there. :-) > > Thanks in advance, > Kojo > > _______________________________________________ > Texas mailing list > Texas at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/texas > > -- Jeremy Boyd boydjj at gmail.com 512-586-4587 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kojo.idrissa at gmail.com Mon Oct 27 19:03:07 2014 From: kojo.idrissa at gmail.com (Kojo Idrissa) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:03:07 -0500 Subject: [Texas] Selenium question: self.browser.implicitly_wait() Message-ID: All, I could probably look this up in docs, but I'm teaching myself TDD (via the ORA book, "TDD with Python"), and I've just used *self.browser.implicitly_wait()* method from Selenium. The argument I pass is time, in seconds. I may not be clear on how the method works. Is that - the time the window *should* stay open, *or* - how long the window will stay open UNTIL the test runs? So, if I used *self.browser.implicitly_wait(10), *in the first case, I'd expect the window to be open 10 seconds. In the second case, I'd expect the window to stay open *up to* 10 seconds, or as long as it takes for the test to complete, whichever comes first. Thanks, Kojo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: