Re: Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

Hello, everybody. Sorry for re-opening this old conversation, but I still haven't heard from you. I'm not sure whether that means that there's no interest in this, or it's just that you've been busy. Cheers, - Gustavo. On Friday, September 6, 2013 11:51:01 AM UTC+1, Gustavo Narea wrote

Re: Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

, 2013 9:22:34 AM UTC+1, Gustavo Narea wrote: > > Hello, > > Any update on this? > > Cheers. > > - Gustavo. > > On Friday, April 12, 2013 3:29:49 PM UTC+1, Gustavo Narea wrote: >> >> Hi Jacob, >> >> On Friday, April 12, 2013 3:09:40 PM UTC+1, Jaco

Re: Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

Hello, Any update on this? Cheers. - Gustavo. On Friday, April 12, 2013 3:29:49 PM UTC+1, Gustavo Narea wrote: > > Hi Jacob, > > On Friday, April 12, 2013 3:09:40 PM UTC+1, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Gustavo Narea >> <gus

Re: Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

Hi Jacob, On Friday, April 12, 2013 3:09:40 PM UTC+1, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Gustavo Narea > <gustav...@2degreesnetwork.com > wrote: > > So I guess that means that it won't be considered for inclusion in > Django? > >

Re: Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

. On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:31:51 PM UTC+1, Gustavo Narea wrote: > > Hello, everybody. > > In the interest of finding a resolution to Ticket > #12091<https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12091>, a > 3-year-old ticket, I wanted to bring this issue to your attention. > &

Support for WSGI applications within Django (Ticket #12091)

ay be controversial. But I guess it might be useful to other people. So, do you agree that Django should have built-in support for running WSGI applications from inside views? Thanks in advance! - Gustavo Narea. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quo

Re: State of X-Sendfile support?

le/X-Accel-Redirect/Location. > In short, it is all a mess and trying to provide support for it in one > bit of code is possibly asking a bit much. I agree with you. However, I think trying to offer some kind of common abstraction may still be beneficial. Cheers. -- Gustavo Narea.

Re: State of X-Sendfile support?

a path on the filesystem. In Nginx (header "X-Accel-Redirect") and CGI (heder "Location"), the path is a URL path within the same host. -- Gustavo Narea. Software Developer. 2degrees, Ltd. <http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/>. -- You received this message because you ar

Re: State of X-Sendfile support?

le. You wouldn't hard code the path to the file either, and yet that's how I've done it in my example. -- Gustavo Narea. Software Developer. 2degrees, Ltd. <http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: State of X-Sendfile support?

Hi all, Just to let you know that there's an X-Sendfile implementation for WSGI apps (inc. Django), which also works with Nginx: https://launchpad.net/wsgi-xsendfile You can use it in Django views via twod.wsgi. For example: """ from twod.wsgi import call_wsgi_app from xsendfile import

Re: Making WSGIHandler the only handler / mod_python support

Hello, On 23 June, 01:00, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Gustavo Narea <m...@gustavonarea.net> wrote: > > To sum up, I'm proposing two things: > >  1.- Making the WSGI handler the only handler. > >  2.- If w

Re: 1.3: Start deprecating mod_python?

Whoops, I wan't aware of this topic when I posted this: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/2e20f4ae486800a1 Anyway, I'm +1 on this. On Jun 22, 10:47 pm, Robert Coup wrote: > Hey folks, > > While people are throwing around 1.3

Making WSGIHandler the only handler / mod_python support

g two things: 1.- Making the WSGI handler the only handler. 2.- If we want to keep mod_python support, use a mod_python<->WSGI wrapper. What do you think? PS: You may want to see the latest comments on Ticket #8927: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8927 -- Gustavo Narea . | Tech blog: =G

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

Hello. On Jun 14, 1:39 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Ok - at this point, I'm broadly happy with your proposals (subject to > the caveats I've given along the way). The next step is to show us > actual code. This won't get applied to trunk as a single monolithic > "fix

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

ese hosting system specific fiddles > should never need to be done by a user. > Right, I see your point. -- Gustavo Narea. Software Developer. 2degrees, Ltd. <http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &quo

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

ve them. I just found two issues and Paste Deploy/Script seemed like a solution. I'm curious about them though. I'll keep an eye on your blog and Web-SIG. -- Gustavo Narea. Software Developer. 2degrees, Ltd. <http://www.2degreesnetwork.com/>. -- You received this message because yo

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

e a bad idea? Cheers. -- Gustavo Narea . | Tech blog: =Gustavo/(+blog)/tech ~ About me: =Gustavo/about | -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To un

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

erlap between your code and that branch? > > > > AFAIR, that branch would've solved (3) only. > > It might only solve (3) from your list, but I'm pretty sure it solves > a bunch of other issues as well. The final diff for the branch > contains a lot of code, and theoretically

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

Hello, Not that I want to rush this, but have you had time to read my last email or made a decision? :-) Cheers, - Gustavo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

Hello, Russell et al. I am not saying that Django's WSGI implementation doesn't comply with the specification. In fact, I've been talking about improving "WSGI support" not "WSGI compliance". It does comply with the specification, but just internally without exposing all the WSGI-related

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

On Jun 2, 9:26 am, Reinout van Rees <rein...@vanrees.org> wrote: > On 05/29/2010 01:51 AM, Gustavo Narea wrote: > > Basically, when you need to integrate a piece of WSGI middleware that > > must be present both on development and deployment, you have to get > > rid of

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

patible. None of them require a major rewrite of the framework. And more importantly, people who don't need these advanced features won't notice any difference*. So, I don't see any of the things I have proposed as a risk of turning Django into a different framework. To sum up, this proposal i

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

OMG, I didn't realize that the very long email I wrote last night was trimmed by Google Groups. Let me take a deep breath and write it again... :'( On May 29, 12:51 am, Gustavo Narea <m...@gustavonarea.net> wrote: > Hello, > > On May 28, 6:13 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ.

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

Hello, On May 28, 6:13 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > This is all very helpful information; thanks for breaking it down like this. > > I've talked this over with a few people at the sprints, and we've > pretty much ended up at the same point -- we're deeply confused. >

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

Sorry, I forgot to link to the embedded application docs: http://packages.python.org/twod.wsgi/manual/embedded-apps.html On May 27, 10:08 am, Gustavo Narea <gna...@tech.2degreesnetwork.com> wrote: > Hello, > > On May 26, 4:52 pm, Ivan Sagalaev <man...@softwaremaniacs.org> w

Re: Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

Hello, On May 26, 4:52 pm, Ivan Sagalaev wrote: > Could you please give a concise technical overview, in high-level terms, > on what twod.wsgi actually does to Django code? Sure. There are different components, so I'll elaborate on them individually: Paste Deploy

Re: DjangoCon.eu is on right now

Hello, Russell et al. On May 24, 10:37 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > We will be sprinting at the conference on Thursday and Friday. If you > have a detailed proposal that would benefit from some round-table > discussion while several core developers are in the same

Proposal: First-class WSGI support in Django 1.3 / twod.wsgi

s.python.org/twod.wsgi/manual/index.html#introduction We're willing to work closely with the core development team to adapt twod.wsgi if necessary and integrate it in Django 1.3. What do you think? - Gustavo Narea. [1] http://packages.python.org/twod.wsgi/ [2] http://groups.google.com/

Re: Process discussion: reboot

Hello, I'm glad someone from the core development team brings this up. I've lost motivation to contribute to Django after the many failed attempts to improve WSGI support. I consider myself of the users Shawn Milochik describes: "There is frustration on the part of some Django users who would

Re: dbsettings, and user configurable app settings

I'd suggest using PasteDeploy: http://packages.python.org/twod.wsgi/manual/paste-factory.html I can't see a reason to reinvent the wheel with a Django-specific thing, while this widely used method is rock-solid. It's the one used in frameworks like Pylons and TurboGears, On Feb 26, 7:11 am,

Re: Status of branch soc2009/http-wsgi-improvements? (and ticket 2131)

Hello, Jari. I'd recommend using twod.wsgi instead: http://bitbucket.org/2degrees/twod.wsgi/ It's very stable, full-feature and truly WSGI compliant. We've been using heavily over the last 2 months. It started from this:

Re: WSGI support in Django

Oct 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Gustavo Narea > <gustavona...@2degreesnetwork.com> wrote: > > > > Hi there. > > > > Over the last week I've been working to improve WSGI support in Django > > and I have sent a few patches which have not received the feedback I >

Re: WSGI support in Django

to have this included in Django officially, instead of having our patched version of Django. If any of you is interested in trading tickets, please let me know. ;-) Hoping-it-can-be-feasible'ly, - Gustavo. On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 09:58 +, Gustavo Narea wrote: > Hello, Russell. > >

Re: WSGI support in Django

at 08:24 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Gustavo Narea > <gustavona...@2degreesnetwork.com> wrote: > > > > Hi there. > > > > Over the last week I've been working to improve WSGI support in Django > > and I have

WSGI support in Django

t the user was authenticated. Please let me know what you think about it! Cheers. :) [1] http://repoze.org/repoze_components.html#middleware -- Gustavo Narea. Software Developer. 2degrees, Ltd. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you a