On Dec 9, 12:26 am, Michael Ströder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeffrey Froman wrote:
>
> > I'd still be interested in a mod_wsgi wrapper for 3rd-party CGI scripts.
>
> I doubt that this is possible, not because of the interface. But
> conventional CGI scripts are implemented with the assumption o
On Dec 8, 8:26 am, Michael Ströder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But conventional CGI scripts are implemented with the assumption of being
> stateless.
while it might be that some CGI scripts must be executed in a new
python process on each request, common sense and good programming
practices wou
Jeffrey Froman wrote:
>
> I'd still be interested in a mod_wsgi wrapper for 3rd-party CGI scripts.
I doubt that this is possible, not because of the interface. But
conventional CGI scripts are implemented with the assumption of being
stateless. You would have to completely reinitialize them for e
Jeffrey Froman wrote:
> While recently
> considering whether to re-write a standalone mod_python application as CGI
> or WSGI, I was scared off by this paragraph from PEP333:
As a followup, I did go ahead and convert my CGI handler to WSGI, and doing
so was not difficult at all. The steps were b
On Nov 29, 2:36 am, Thomas Guettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Istvan Albert schrieb:
>
> > It will be awesome ifmod_wsgican run CGI without invoking python on
> > each access.
>
> For SCGI there is something like this: cgi2scgi: it is small executable
> written in C,
> which connects to a runni
Istvan Albert schrieb:
> It will be awesome if mod_wsgi can run CGI without invoking python on
> each access.
For SCGI there is something like this: cgi2scgi: it is small executable written
in C,
which connects to a running SCGI server.
Executing this small binary on every request is no big over
On Nov 25, 1:55 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The other question is whether there is even a demand for this. Do
> people want to be able to take unmodified Python CGI scripts and try
> to run them persistently in this way, or would they be better off
> converting them to proper
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
> The other question is whether there is even a demand for this. Do
> people want to be able to take unmodified Python CGI scripts and try
> to run them persistently in this way, or would they be better off
> converting them to proper WSGI applications.
I would personally
On Nov 23, 8:49 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:00 am, Istvan Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 12:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I would say that that is now debatable. Overall mod_wsgi is probably a
> > > better p
