+1 Quetzalcoatl
doraproject.org/projects/pungi). Quetzalcoatl
is a great Apache project name in that it's kind of related in a cultural
memory kind of way to the project ideas, but obscure enough to be completely
forgettable :) I guess Scales also falls into that category, and it gets my
vote because it's easier to spell.
Nick
he
versions from _apache.
Nick
+0
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> Anyway, the point of this email is to get a decision on whether this
> major new feature should or should not be added into mod_python.
>
> Core developer votes obviously matter the most, but others are more
> than welcome to voice an opinion.
d_python changing so radically at this point
in the game. It's fun to think about, though. :) In a masochistic kind of way.
Nick
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> BTW, did we ever considered using SWIG to map the Apache API ? I know
> it can be quite tricky to use, but it could be a real time saver.
That's essentially what mod_snake did, and why I liked it so much. Though I
don't remember if it used swig or pyrex.
Nick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 Ubuntu 5.10 Breezy (amd64), Apache 2.0.54-worker, Python 2.4.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD5/mTv4zJ7LQ+i84RAofQAKCb4ptmhPQa5QKRV/2sga60Xz4oAACcDygf
IB8UDE0zlcUr+I16DWbQ09U=
=WrUY
-END PGP SIGNATURE--
these you
can identify as "key," but I would say that *BSD, OSX and Solaris should top
the list. I also suggest Linux x86_64 of some kind, since it's becoming
more and more widely used; I know we've got 2 or 3 people that normally
respond to release tests that do.
Nick
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 Linux (amd64) Ubuntu Breezy (5.10), apache 2.0.54 (mpm-worker),
python 2.4
Jim Gallacher wrote:
| A new mod_python 3.2.6 beta tarball is now available for testing.
| Nicolas has built windows versions for Python 2.4 and Python 2.3 which
| should a
l decision on this or everyone just assumed it was true. Perhaps a
| pronoucement from Grisha to make it offical?
|
| If python 2.2 support has been dropped then it needs needs to be
| mentioned in changes section of the docs, and the README as well.
|
| Jim
|
| Nick wrote:
|
|> I'm pretty su
I'm pretty sure we've had a few discussions about being able to use certain
functions and modules because they became available in 2.3, and that's what
mod_python was going to require. Like the bsddb database version for your
session code, for example.
Nick
Jim Gallacher wr
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
Just one comment. It seems like it would be better just to make
add_method inline, since everything else in __init__ is, and it never
gets called from anywhere else.
add_method?
Haha, thanks, I haven't had coffee yet. The add_item method, that is.
If you provide say FieldStorage.make_dict that returns a dictionary, then I
don't see why the order of the keys is important when the original list is
still available.
Nick
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi,
Speaking of ordered dictionary :
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/w
for myself, I have not had problems on ubuntu 5.10 amd64.
Nick
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Michel Jouvin wrote:
Jim,
I am not totally surprised... I am afraid this is a platform specific
issue as we are running mod_python on Tru64. Something like a 64 bits
issue. Does it sound a reasonnable
Just FYI for anyone who's still interested...
The fileno method only exists and returns non-negative integers for real
file streams. So that's the trick.
Nick
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
How about this? (Excuse the LateX)
\class{Field} instances have the following
n doesn't decide to return one
of those from a tempfile.TemporaryFile call. It's probably not important
enough for most people anyway since they're using publisher or something
similar.
Sorry to have wasted time on this.
Nick
e functionality?
What specifically gets broken in util.FieldStorage?
No, I'm not sure. Now that I play around with it I'm not sure I
understand the problem at all. Perhaps Nick could elaborate?
[...]
Other than the fact that "isinstance(t, FileType): returns False, I
don't
fact that the implementation of TemporaryFile changed in
Python 2.3 may have something to do with it. I honestly don't remember what
the previous behavior was, but it worked OK for me at one time :)
Nick
Well, here's another alternative: provide some other attribute to Field,
such as is_file, to determine whether or not the Field is an actual file
upload or something else. Because as implemented, the file attribute will
always return a file-type object.
Nick
Nick wrote:
Jorey Bump
yFileWrapper object but keeping a reference to the file.
It's unfortunate that it's not possible to subclass a builtin type and
overload its methods (that I know of).
Nick
users. As for code breakage, I
would consider this a "bug" introduced in 3.1.4, which was the last official
release of mod_python, which will be corrected in release 3.3.
Nick
t). I disagree that
documenting this fact in mod_python without changing the code doesn't amount
to saying you don't support Windows. It just means you support Windows to
the extent that Python itself does.
Nick
Indrek Järve wrote:
This behaviour has been with Python for quite a w
easily understood by noobs (and subsequently leads to fewer support requests
on the list) :)
Nick
bind local variables in the closure).
Nick
one).
Your code would still work, but if anything was logged by the original
handler after the internal redirect had returned, the request object will
have been wiped out and it would not log through "req" but through
"apache.log_error()" instead.
Right, that's the int
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Hopefully everyone follows what I am talking about. I will try and get
together a working example today of what I am talking about, but Nick,
you may want to consider posting your code and how you are using it
as it probably will not be too different.
Here's my s
cleanup in a closure to
handle the freeing.
Alternatively, you can register the server and use apache.log_error with a
server object, which should not leak. Also, if you don't care about logging
to a particular server, you can, of course, just call apache.log_error
without a server argument.
Nick
lude a WSGI implementation for
mod_python was shot down, which is a Python PEP and something I thought
would have been pretty neat to include. Regardless of Grisha's personal
feelings on that (and I have a pretty good idea of what they are ;-)), I
think it was ultimately the right decision for mod_python.
Nick
ne using my stuff could implement a logging
handler to use my interfaces, if they liked.
Call it a difference of opinion until someone can change my mind :)
Nick
Nic Ferrier wrote:
Nick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nic Ferrier wrote:
I just joined this list (at the suggestion of Graham Dumpleton) to try
and get you guys to consider adding some glue to connect python >2.2
logging to Apache's logging.
I have done this before, and alth
ly the same thing). On the other hand, I'm not sure
including this code fits with Grisha's philosophy of mod_python being
what it is -- glue between Python and apache -- especially when this is
such a simple exercise to anyone who has read the logging docs.
Nick
Instead of the code:
from threading import Lock
It should use:
try:
from threading import Lock
except:
class Lock:
def acquire(self): pass
def release(self): pass
I suggest:
try:
from threading import Lock
except:
from dummy_threading import Lock
Nick
nor intuitive for new people to get started
with mod_python I think. For a newbie, it looks like it could be overwhelming.
Nick
Never mind; I think I've tracked down the problem, and I think it's
related to the fact that I inadvertently upgraded the python2.4 package
on my system to version 2.4.2rc1 :-/
Nick
Nick wrote:
For some reason I can no longer execute a function registered with
req.register_clean
sessions. I say put the publisher
there as well, since it doesn't have anything to do with the philosophy of
mod_python, even by Grisha's definition, and solves some release issues with
mod_python itself (can anyone say imports?).
Nick
ust "no"),
but fall back to a script that generates a nice, verbose error message
explaining the situation. That way, when the user tries to call "make"
after modifying the .l file, the fake flex alternative script gets called,
displays the message, and exits with statu
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I
don't know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default
for DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass?
Starting with Python 2.3 this module i
Nick wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Using bsddb3 would introduce new dependency for mod_python, so I don't
know if it's a good idea to use transaction handling by default for
DbmSession. Maybe we could offer a subclass?
Starting with Python 2.3 this module is included in the stand
ibution as its bsddb module.
Nick
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I'm a little concerned about staying focused on closing the last bugs so
that we get to a point where a release can be made, since there hasn't
been one in such a long time...
+1 on that
Nick
Right, I was thinking the same thing... those are pretty extreme
conditions. But very interesting as a benchmark. I assume ext3?
Nick
dharana wrote:
Wow, good work Jim.
A bit of perspective:
5 active sessions with an average of 15 mins duration per session
means roughly 4,800,000
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
+1 for PythonOption session_
Unless choosing a specificc configuration directive has something to
do with security (i.e. no overloading of the settings in .htaccess
files) ?
(This is what I was ineptly trying to get at earlier.)
Nick
to implement a pure C
session handler, then PythonSessionOption makes sense, but otherwise it
doesn't seem necessary.
Nick
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
How about an explicit "None" value to completely disable it? If you
don't want users on your site using it.
Do you mean to disable sessions, or just the session configuration?
Yes, I'm sorry, I mean disable the session mechanism altog
How about an explicit "None" value to completely disable it? If you don't
want users on your site using it.
Nick
Jim Gallacher wrote:
So, any further thoughts / comments / objections to PythonSessionOption,
or shall I just check in the code?
Regards
Jim
Jim Gallacher wrote
The question thus is, if you understand what I am raving about, is
whether it is reasonable that packages will not be supported by
apache.import_module(). There is a slim chance some ones code may
break as a result but the majority would work fine.
See above.
Nick
PythonHandler directive whether the handler should be loaded as a
> standard Python module, from the sys.path, or as a dynamic Python
> module, from the document tree.
Nick
here are other issues as well which
I haven't even mentioned.
This all looks good to me. I hate to just say "yes I agree" to
everything without really adding much to the discussion, but you've
clearly been thinking about it a lot longer than most people.
Nick
t; on next sunday.
I think the syntax is OK, just the implementation that needs changing.
I don't think there should be any compatibility issues.
Nick
49 matches
Mail list logo
