On 5 January 2011 07:04, James Y Knight wrote:
> Back to the subject of this thread: A simple CGI server is useful because
> it's simple enough that you can include it in the spec, to demonstrate how to
> handle various bits of WSGI. And anyone writing a webserver understands CGI,
> and can und
On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> (for the record, the leading Web scripting language, PHP, has moved away from
> CGI and standardized on mod_php eons ago)
Yet also still offers a cgi if you want to use that instead.
CGI is a wonderful lowest-common-denominator. It's a great opt
Right. Note that App Engine does not copy the full CGI mechanism -- it
doesn't start a new process for each request. But it does use
os.environ to set the request parameters for each request. However, in
practice, all but the simplest test apps use a custom WSGI bridge, and
we are considering drop
I used wsgi and have my app on a shared server and runs excelent,
better than if was using cgi, that cause me a lot of headache with the
incompatiblities with Py3k.
2011/1/4, Eric Larson :
> At Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:19:48 + (UTC),
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> P.J. Eby writes:
>> >
>> > At 12:43
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:53 AM, P.J. Eby wrote:
> At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Alice BevanMcGregor writes: > > [1] http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So,
>> while we are at it, could we get rid of the "CGI server example" in this new
>> SWGI spec? This is 2011, and we should promote m
CGI may be old fashioned, but in my opinion Ron got the point. And for simple
applications CGI is fast enough.
I don't want to miss this option.
Klaus.
--
Am 04.01.2011 um 18:57 schrieb hid...@gmail.com:
> Because CGI is an old fashion way to make the things and is very different
> from the
Eric Larson writes:
> It is important to recognize that "production" doesn't necessarily
> have to be some ultra powerful server somewhere that is central to
> some organization. A simple server running Apache with CGI is just as
> valid a production environment as an EC2 cluster. This is especial
At Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:19:48 + (UTC),
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> P.J. Eby writes:
> >
> > At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > >Alice BevanMcGregor writes: > > [1]
> > >http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So, while we are at it, could we get rid of
> > >the "CGI server example" in this
CGI is by far the quickest and easiest way to write and deploy very
simple web site scripts. As you move to improve Python for important
industrial strength web programming, why not also continue to support
quick and dirty web interactivity scripts?
Because CGI is an old fashion way to make t
CGI is by far the quickest and easiest way to write and deploy very simple web
site scripts. As you move to improve Python for important industrial strength
web programming, why not also continue to support quick and dirty web
interactivity scripts?
Ron Stephens
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4,
P.J. Eby writes:
>
> At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >Alice BevanMcGregor writes: > > [1]
> >http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So, while we are at it, could we get rid of
> >the "CGI server example" in this new SWGI spec? This is 2011, and we
> >should promote modern idioms, not enco
At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Alice BevanMcGregor writes: > > [1]
http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So, while we are at it, could we get rid of
the "CGI server example" in this new SWGI spec? This is 2011, and we
should promote modern idioms, not encourage people to do 1995 Web
progr
Agree, i develop an excelent wsgi server in Py3k, without use the cgi
library to extract the data, so is better if in the manual kills the
part that indicate use the cgi lib to extract the data.
2011/1/4, Antoine Pitrou :
> Alice Bevan–McGregor writes:
>>
>> [1] http://bit.ly/e7rtI6
>
> So, while
Alice Bevan–McGregor writes:
>
> [1] http://bit.ly/e7rtI6
So, while we are at it, could we get rid of the "CGI server example" in this new
SWGI spec?
This is 2011, and we should promote modern idioms, not encourage people to do
1995 Web programming. 10 years ago, CGI was already frown upon.
(and
14 matches
Mail list logo
