On Mar 22, 7:45 am, Michael Schurter <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread because I fail to see
> why "touch <your wsgi file>" isn't the optimal solution?
Your incomprehension is somehow my problem?
> You could type that hundreds of times in the time its taken everyone involved
> to read & reply to this thread. :-)
Go on, I won't stand in your way.
> Hell, just map ":!touch <your wsgi file>" to some shortcut key in vim
> and get on with your life if you insist on using modwsgi for development! :-)
>
> Graham has lots of neat features lined up for 3.0. I'd like him to be
> able to focus on those and not the shortcomings of your particular
> workflow. ;-)
I think I've made my desire sufficiently clear in the first post to
this thread.
No answer remotely even touches on beeing satisfactory, where the
range of satisfactory includes "I get what you want, but I won't do
it" (which btw. wouldn't need reams of philosophy to say)
There's a range of different approaches how to reload your code, and
while some are supported by mod_wsgi, some aren't. I pointed out one
way that isn't supported. I also suggested what simple measures could
be done by mod_wsgi that will not impact other usage and leave the
decision up to the developer. And all you can bring forward is reams
of useless philosophy and insults. Yeah, smooth.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"modwsgi" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
