Does Django development provide a truly flexible 3 layer architecture?

Question

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!

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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)