Well, the stack is really just an example, meant to be more realistic
than sample1 and sample2. I actually think it's a very reasonable
example, but that's not really the point. Presuming this stack, how
would you configure it?
Chris McDonough wrote:
Just for a frame of reference, I'll say
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 01:18 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
Well, the stack is really just an example, meant to be more realistic
than sample1 and sample2. I actually think it's a very reasonable
example, but that's not really the point. Presuming this stack, how
would you configure it?
I
Well, I thought I'd chime in with everything I'd want in a deployment
strategy; some of this clearly is the realm of practice, not code, but
it all fits together. It's not necessarily the Universal Use Case, but
I don't think it's too strange.
Here's some types of applications:
* Things I
At 06:40 PM 7/25/2005 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
But configuration and composition of multiple independent applications
into a single process isn't. I don't think we can solve these
separately, because the Hard Problem is how to handle configuration
alongside composition. How can I apply
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 20:29 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
We probably need something like a site map configuration, that can
handle tree structure, and can specify pipelines on a per location
basis, including the ability to specify pipeline components to be
applied above everything under a
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 08:29 PM 7/25/2005 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
Right now Paste hands around a fairly flat dictionary. This
dictionary is passed around in full (as part of the WSGI environment)
to every piece of middleware, and actually to everything (via an
import and threadlocal
Chris McDonough wrote:
How much of this could be solved by using a web server's
directory/alias-mapping facility?
For instance, if you needed a single Apache webserver to support
multiple pipelines based on URL mapping, wouldn't it be possible in many
cases to compose that out of things
