On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Graham Dumpleton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jul 9, 6:22 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Having one SOP, pylons.app, containing all the Pylons globals has long >>> been suggested by me. The value could also be attached to the >>> controller instance -- one attribute instead of several. That would >>> be for users who object to getting request info from a module global, >>> and because I've heard there are some situations (somemod_wsgi >>> applications?) that can't use the SOPs. >> >> Not understand what SOPs are all about, can you explain why they would >> be a problem in mod_wsgi. >> >> I keep seeing comments by various people suggesting that they don't >> really understand how mod_wsgi works. I'd either like to understand >> what the issue with SOPs is, or if it is a misunderstanding about how >> mod_wsgi works, then correct that misunderstanding. > > I heard somewhere that SOPs don't work with mod_wsgi, and that > request/response/session/c et al were also attached to the controller > instance because of that. I've never used mod_wsgi so I don't know if > it's true or not. >
We use mod_wsgi + pylons in production and I've never noticed a problem like that before. Maybe is a configuration problem? -- Lawrence, stacktrace.it - oluyede.org - neropercaso.it "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
