On 17 March 2017 at 01:28, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Lutz Horn <lutz.h...@posteo.de> writes: >> We don't know *why* those people told you not to use these modules. We >> also don't know your use case. So it is very hard to advise you. > > The use case is to have a very easily set up way to serve basic pages > and files, without a lot of configuration files and other > infrastructure. The main reason not to use it would be security holes > if there are some. I haven't examined the code carefully but didn't see > obvious issues at a quick glanace. I frankly worry more about large C > programs than Python programs. > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Security isn’t the main problem. SimpleHTTPServer is fine for small, local, one-off servers. However, for anything large, there are two problems: (a) its ephemeral nature, and (b) slow performance (no caching). nginx (or apache if you must) takes only a few minutes to set up, and does not have those problems. CgiHTTPServer? It’s 2017 and CGI should be long dead. CGI means firing up a Python/Perl/$cgi_language interpreter on every single HTTP request, already a waste of time. And then, CGI scripts take input via random environment variables (not very dependable) and output to stdout, which is a completely broken architecture. Give up and run a real web framework (Django) using uWSGI and nginx. -- Chris Warrick <https://chriswarrick.com/> PGP: 5EAAEA16 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
