Actually, I think a mod_wsgi for Apache and IIS would be one of _the_ most important things for WSGI. I think that it would search for a __wsgi__.py file (or maybe something with a better name) which would expose a WSGI application named "application" that would handle requests for the directory in
> I think Ian Bicking or Michelle Levesque would be good choices for the
> role: they know the field, and they're not emotionally committed to any
> of the existing frameworks.
Michelle is currently a computer science undergrad at the university of
Toronto. Are you saying all the people with ma
>>Greg Wilson wrote:
I think Ian Bicking or Michelle Levesque would be good choices for the
role...
mike bayer wrote:
Michelle is currently a computer science undergrad at the university of
Toronto. Are you saying all the people with many years of real-world
experience building dynamic web applic
I am also opposed to the role as a whole. Guido created Python,
established himself as the obvious controller of its direction, and then
because he was really good at it, the developers came and it became
popular. All of us, by choosing to be Python developers, have indivdually
chosen to be part
> mike bayer wrote:
> [...]
Also, lets think about what the role really means: we must choose someone
to oversee the development of a ripoff of some other language's web
platform and establish it as the "one true way to develop web applications
in Python"
Greg Wilson writes:
Mike, as I said in my
ok, well its not fair to say im putting words in your mouth. I am
obviously re-stating them, in the way they are striking me as what result
they would ultimately indicate, which is the part that is my opinion:
your words:
"with a mandate to put together something that has all the features that a
* mike bayer [2005-04-29 11:57]:
Just to emerge from lurking for a moment, and without years of working
in the python community like you guys, it seems pretty obvious to me
that such a solution (a "dictated" web app approach) would never happen.
>From what I've read of Guido's this seems completel
On 4/28/05, Greg Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My solution is for Guido (or someone with equivalent authority)
> to appoint someone "Benevolent Dictator for the Web for One Year", with
> a mandate to put together something that has all the features that are
> getting Rails so much attention.
Oops. Slight clarification:
On 4/29/05, Jeremy Hylton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm also skeptical of a plan that sets out to build the one right way
> that everyone will use. I don't know anything about the history of
> Rails, but I'm guessing that the project didn't start because Matz
> sai
Uh, just to clarify this was me, not mike, I forgot to kill that
attribution line!
* Todd Grimason [2005-04-29 12:02]:
> * mike bayer [2005-04-29 11:57]:
>
> Just to emerge from lurking for a moment, and without years of working
> in the python community like you guys, it seems pretty obvious to
Hi Jeremy; thanks for your post.
> Jeremy Hylton wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea for several reasons. Let's imagine
we could go back in time four years and tell the Ruby community the
same thing: Appoint someone to research a popular new way of building
web applications and add that to t
Greg Wilson wrote:
> Jeremy Hylton wrote:
I don't think a large web programming toolkit belongs in the Python
distribution. If anything, go the other way around and package a
particular version of Python with this web toolkit.
Sure, both models have been successful in the past: PIL and Numeric a
Peter Hunt wrote:
Actually, I think a mod_wsgi for Apache and IIS would be one of _the_
most important things for WSGI. I think that it would search for a
__wsgi__.py file (or maybe something with a better name) which would
expose a WSGI application named "application" that would handle requests
Martijn Faassen wrote:
There are a ton of non-core XML frameworks around for Python, enjoying
considerate popularity. The python 'xml' package is not the "one true
way" to do XML with Python, and certainly doesn't enjoy anything near
the popularity and buzz of Ruby on Rails, say. I don't see why
Ian Bicking wrote:
Peter Hunt wrote:
Actually, I think a mod_wsgi for Apache and IIS would be one of _the_
most important things for WSGI. I think that it would search for a
__wsgi__.py file (or maybe something with a better name) which would
expose a WSGI application named "application" that wo
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:53:30AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> I can imagine a good setup for hosts being one based on forking per-user
> processes, which is adaptive primarily to scale down -- e.g., a largely
> dorman app could have 1 or even 0 processes running (at 0 it becomes
> similar to CG
> Peter Hunt wrote:
>> Actually, I think a mod_wsgi for Apache and IIS would be one of _the_
>> most important things for WSGI. I think that it would search for a
>> __wsgi__.py file (or maybe something with a better name) which would
>> expose a WSGI application named "application" that would hand
while this is not an exciting option, if separate per-user processes are
needed, there is always apache going via mod_proxy to sub-instances of
apache that run for each user's account on different ports, each running
mod_python. im not sure how feasable that is to run many servers in
various share
Jacob Smullyan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:53:30AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
I can imagine a good setup for hosts being one based on forking per-user
processes, which is adaptive primarily to scale down -- e.g., a largely
dorman app could have 1 or even 0 processes running (at 0 it becomes
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
twisted.web2 supports: HTTP, HTTPS, CGI, and I wrote SCGI yesterday and
will commit it this weekend. FastCGI looks like a complicated protocol,
so it'll probably be a bit harder than SCGI to implement. Is there
actually a reason to support it as w
mike bayer wrote:
while this is not an exciting option, if separate per-user processes are
needed, there is always apache going via mod_proxy to sub-instances of
apache that run for each user's account on different ports, each running
mod_python. im not sure how feasable that is to run many server
The reloading problem is a tough one, and Aquarium went through a lot
of iterations before it came to a "good solution". Now days, I have a
property which tells what types of modules I'm interested in
reloading. Then, if any module is stale, I reload all of those
modules. This takes care of case
James Y Knight wrote:
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
twisted.web2 supports: HTTP, HTTPS, CGI, and I wrote SCGI yesterday and
will commit it this weekend. FastCGI looks like a complicated protocol,
so it'll probably be a bit harder than SCGI to implement. Is there
actually a rea
On 4/29/05, Greg Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Greg Wilson wrote:
> >>I think Ian Bicking or Michelle Levesque would be good choices for the
> >>role...
>
> > mike bayer wrote:
> > Michelle is currently a computer science undergrad at the university of
> > Toronto. Are you saying all the
Hmm, I wasn't on this list at the time it happened. Was everyone
going goofy when Mason came out? I'm sure Mason is still far more
widely used than RoR. I've used Mason, and it's really nice.
However, neither Mason nor RoR meet my needs because I'm a Python
coder. My company, IronPort, has a m
At the last Bay Piggies meeting, as well as at PyCon, Guido felt
strongly that no Python Web application framework belonged in the
Python standard library for these reasons:
o The release schedule for such a library doesn't match the release
schedule of Python. Imagine having to wait a year befor
When I came to IronPort, I had to act as such a benevolent dictator,
or rather, a benevolent concensus builder. I worked with Sam Rushing,
of Medusa fame; Paul Clegg who worked on ClearSilver; Eric Huss who
had his own templating language (what good Python programmer
doesn't!); my boss who was fro
At the risk of offending you guys with my continual blabbering, I do
like the "tools not policy" approach shared by the FreeBSD and Mason
worlds. For instance, the Apache project has nice session libraries
for Perl. Everyone wrote their own plugins for the common API. Since
the library is a tool
* Shannon -jj Behrens [2005-04-29 15:55]:
> Is it just me or does the Python Web application framework world seem
> about as obstinate a problem as the Palestinian mess? ;)
ack! no real world problems please. i might be the only one here who
hasn't written my own framework, but as a sample custo
Supporting fastcgi is useful for two reasons.
Supporting fastcgi so that you can be called by another httpd, eg
apache, or lighttpd. Some people allready use fastcgi to call php,
python or ruby on rails apps.
Supporting it to call php, or ruby on rails apps. This way, twisted
could run .php fil
On 4/30/05, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Bicking wrote:
> > Peter Hunt wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, I think a mod_wsgi for Apache and IIS would be one of _the_
> >> most important things for WSGI. I think that it would search for a
> >> __wsgi__.py file (or maybe something with a bett
At 01:05 PM 4/29/05 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
At the risk of showing my ignorance concerning
WSGI, it's easier to use a session library in Perl than a session
library in WSGI, because the session library has no knowledge of
anything in your application, not even a context object.
I don't un
I think we're violently agreeing.
-jj
On 4/29/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 01:05 PM 4/29/05 -0700, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
> >At the risk of showing my ignorance concerning
> >WSGI, it's easier to use a session library in Perl than a session
> >library in WSGI, because th
On 04/29/05 03:38, Mark Rees wrote:
> On 4/29/05, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here's the full set of WSGI-enabled servers I'd like to see (and in
>> some way encorporate into Paste, of course):
>>
>> * CGI gateway (done: not sure of canonical location)
>> * Simple threaded HTTP serve
Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
At the risk of offending you guys with my continual blabbering, I do
like the "tools not policy" approach shared by the FreeBSD and Mason
worlds.
This is exactly what I see WSGI accomplishing. It's too lame of an
interface to be anyone's policy (in a good way, of cour
Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
When I came to IronPort, I had to act as such a benevolent dictator,
or rather, a benevolent concensus builder...Note, I'm not trying to force
Aquarium on *anybody*. I wrote it because I needed it. I open
sourced it because I like sharing.
To add to JJ's background on A
36 matches
Mail list logo
