I think i'll stick with 2 separate WSGI apps (and therefore 2 separate configurators..) for the time being although i can't help but wonder if this is the right approach.. Thanks alot.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: > Composite applications can work fine; sometimes, as you have discovered, > components have per-process configuration instead of per-WSGI-application > configuration and won't cooperate properly. > > Obviously you have to compose at the WSGI layer to host something unrelated > like Trac alongside your Pyramid application. If the second application has > to integrate with your application, like a reusable login form, WSGI > composition is a pain and Pyramid config.include() will be better. > > You should have one entry point per application. With the paster composite > middleware the configuration looks something like > > [composite:urlmap] > use = egg:Paste#urlmap > /foo = egg:fooapp:foo > / = egg:fooapp:bar > > If those are both Pyramid applications then you will eventually have two > unrelated Configurator()s that create two separate WSGI applications. > > Personally I try to avoid WSGI whenever possible. I prefer to use it only > as a gateway interface to a web server, not as an ill-fitting tool for > application composition. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
