While maintaining support for the WSGI standard, are you okay with extending mod_wsgi with very apache-specific features?
I don't have anything exactly defined in mind, but most things I would ask for would have to do with using apache to it's fullest possible extent. -JG On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Graham Dumpleton < [email protected]> wrote: > This email is an official call for feedback from you as a mod_wsgi > user as to what new features you would like to see added to mod_wsgi. > > Part of the reason for the current code cleanup I am doing is to make > it easier to add new features. I have for a long time had my own ideas > for new features but my time to work on mod_wsgi has been quite > limited for the last couple of years. This year though should be a lot > different and expect to be able to do a fair bit of work on mod_wsgi > to enhance and make it more versatile. > > Although I have my own ideas, I rarely hear from people out there > actually using it as to what features they would like to see and which > would make what they do easier. It seems you all just accept what you > are given and don't question it. I am particularly surprised (at least > that I know of), to not really see probing questions from people > setting up these new breed of WSGI hosting services in the style of > Heroku as to the best way they might use mod_wsgi, or to see feedback > from them on what features they would like to see to make it easier. I > know some are actually using gunicorn, but others are still using > Apache/mod_wsgi. > > So, what new features would you like to see in mod_wsgi? > > I'll will describe one major feature just so people don't just ask for > it when already well on the way to working out how to implement it. > > That one feature is the ability to define a template for a daemon > process group with new daemon process groups setup according to that > template being able to be started dynamically without having to > restart Apache. That is, instead of having to change the static > configuration of Apache, could be as simple as just dropping a WSGI > script file in place and when a request occurs which gets routed to > that, a new daemon process group for that application is created > automatically, with it running with user/group corresponding to the > ownership of the WSGI script file. > > Anyway, post your ideas and I'll comment as appropriate, indicating > whether already being considered, not practical, or already > implemented and you didn't know about it. > > Graham > > -- > 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]<modwsgi%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en. > > -- 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.
