On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 05:28:10PM -0500, David Binger wrote:
-> On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
->
-> >Which is -- why aren't you guys embracing WSGI more?
->
-> Personally, I haven't really seen how using WSGI would help
-> in the applications we run here. Is there something
-> WSCGI offers, that I should want, that I don't already
-> have by using SCGI? If there is now, or in the future,
-> couldn't this be provided by a WSCGI-to-SCGI bridge?
I'll answer this separately from Ian:
1. Is there something WSGI offers?
Right now, not too much. In the future, almost certainly, in
the form of pluggable middleware functionality like caching,
gzip, and session handling. All of this middleware
functionality will be largely or completely plug-n-play for
Web apps that are WSGI compatible.
2. If I wanted to use WSGI with Quixote now, what bridges are there?
Several SCGI-to-WSGI bridges exist already. The simplest one
(which doesn't by any means mean the best!) is maintained by
me here:
http://vallista.idyll.org/wiki/ScgiToWsgiServer
A WSGI-to-Quixote wrapper already exists, as well; it is
maintained by Mike Orr, here:
http://cafepy.com/quixote_extras/rex/wsgi_server.py
Nobody AFAIK has indicated any technical problems with either of these
bridges.
So my question back to you: what could we (Mike Orr and me) do to get
these into the standard Quixote distribution?
;)
cheers,
--titus
_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
