I've also been putting a bit of thought into middleware configuration,
although maybe in a different direction. I'm not too concerned yet
about being able to introspect the configuration of an individual
component. Maybe that's because I haven't thought about the problem
enough to be concerned
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:29 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
There's nothing in WSGI to facilitate introspection. Sometimes that
seems annoying, though I suspect lots of headaches are removed because
of it, and I haven't found it to be a stopper yet. The issue I'm
interested in is just how to
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 03:16 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
This is what Paste does in configuration, like:
middleware.extend([
SessionMiddleware, IdentificationMiddleware,
AuthenticationMiddleware, ChallengeMiddleware])
This kind of middleware takes a single argument, which is the
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 22:49 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
In addition to the examples I gave in response to Graham, I wrote a
document on this a while ago:
http://pythonpaste.org/docs/url-parsing-with-wsgi.html
The hard part about this is configuration; it's easy to configure a
non-branching
I've had a stab at creating a simple WSGI deployment implementation.
I use the term WSGI component in here as shorthand to indicate all
types of WSGI implementations (server, application, gateway).
The primary deployment concern is to create a way to specify the
configuration of an instance of a
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 17:26 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
To do this, we use a ConfigParser-format config file named
'myapplication.conf' that looks like this::
[application:sample1]
config = sample1.conf
factory = wsgiconfig.tests.sample_components.factory1
of the
config file formats we've been discussing matches which requirement?
Thanks,
- C
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 22:24 -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 08:35 PM 7/24/2005 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
Sorry, I think I may have lost track of where we were going wrt the
deployment spec. Specifically
]
[lowercaser from helloworld]
... and run some starter script that parses that as a pipeline,
creates the two instances, wires them together, and we get a running
pipeline?
Am I on track?
OK, back to Battlestar Galactica ;-)
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 02:40 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
BTW, a simple
:39 -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 03:02 AM 7/25/2005 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
Actually, let me give this a shot.
We package up an egg called helloworld.egg. It happens to contain
something that can be used as a WSGI component. Let's say it's a WSGI
application that always returns
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
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
An aside on cgi.FieldStorage itself. It reads data using readline
instead of reading in blocks of limited size. doing this I think means
a file with very long lines, 20MB, 100MB, ... could cause excessive
memory consumption.
This was reported and solved a long time ago (but not yet fixed in
One specific concern about the returning the published object for
publisher-based frameworks is that often the published object has
references to other objects that might not make sense in the context
of the thread handling the rendering of the template. For example,
if you're using a
Although I've been trying to follow this thread, I'm finding it
difficult to get a handle on what is meant to *call* the template API
(e.g. what typically calls render in Ian's ITemplatePlugin
interface at http://svn.pythonpaste.org/home/ianb/templateapi/
interface.py)? Is the framework
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Alan Kennedy wrote:
So, I still think that only basic servers educational/playpen servers
should go in the standard library, with an indication that the user
should pick an openly server from outside the distro if they
require to
do serious server work.
I agree
You probably want elementtree (http://effbot.org/zone/element-index.htm).
Thanks for the rapid reply. I am familiar with a number of these and
have searched the web documentation but for the most part these appear
to be parsers or things like:
On Jun 26, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
In Apache changing the certificates would need a complete restart of
everything. Because the child processes aren't privileged they would
not be able to trigger the main server to do so. This actually gets to
one of my reservations about
On Jun 26, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Robert Brewer wrote:
I think I'm mostly confused by the name process bus because it
seems like the primary use case for something like this is where all
of the applications share the same process space
I don't see why it should be limited by that. The primary use
On Oct 4, 2007, at 11:55 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 05:00 PM 10/4/2007 +0200, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Your are making a critical decision here.
You are lowering the level of WSGI to match the level of average WSGI
middlewares programmers.
No, we're just getting rid of legacy cruft that's
I have applications that do detect the difference between a GET and a HEAD
(they
do slightly less work if the request is a HEAD request), so I suspect this is
not a totally reasonable thing to add to the spec. Maybe instead the
middleware
that does what you're describing should be changed
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
As I think we all know, no one implements readline() for wsgi.input as
defined in the WSGI specification. The reason for this is that stuff
like cgi.FieldStorage would refuse to work and would just generate an
exception. This is because cgi.FieldStorage expects to pass
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If the size argument is made mandatory, then it would parallel how
read() function is defined, but this in itself would mean
cgi.FieldStorage would break.
This is because cgi.FieldStorage actually calls readline() with no
argument as well as an argument in
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 31/01/2008, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If the size argument is made mandatory, then it would parallel how
read() function is defined, but this in itself would mean
cgi.FieldStorage would break.
This is because cgi.FieldStorage
Summary
---
The first major release of the BFG web framework (aka repoze.bfg),
version 1.0, is available. See http://bfg.repoze.org/ for general
information about repoze.bfg.
Details
---
BFG is a Python web framework based on WSGI. It is inspired by Zope,
Pylons, and Django. It
On 7/5/09 10:37 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The first major release of the BFG web framework (aka repoze.bfg),
version 1.0, is available. See http://bfg.repoze.org/ for general
information about repoze.bfg.
...
- WSGI-based deployment: PasteDeploy and mod_wsgi compatible.
...
- A
On 7/5/09 11:44 PM, Randy Syring wrote:
Chris,
Sounds interesting. Question: Does it support some
kind of module/plugin architecture that will allow me to develop plug-
in functionality across projects? What would be called in
Django an app.
For example, I would like to have a news, blog,
I'll try to digest some of this, currently I'm pretty clueless.
Personally, I find it a bit hard to get excited about Python 3 as a web
application deployment platform. This is of course a personal judgment (I
don't mean to slight Python 3) but at this point, I'll think I'll probably be
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com wrote:
WSGI is a fairly low-level protocol aimed at folks who need to interface a
server to the outside world. The outside world (by its nature) talks bytes.
I fear that any implied conversion of environment values
This is supported at least here:
http://docs.repoze.org/session/usage.html#using-begin-and-end-subscribers
Alastair Bell Turner wrote:
Hi
I've been looking through the range of choices for Python web
[application] frameworks/libraries (Just to have all the bases
covered) for a new build
Ian Bicking wrote:
Also I'm planning on introducing a BaseRequest (and *maybe*
BaseResponse) class, that removes some functionality. Specifically
for Repoze they'd like to remove __getattr__ and __setattr__ (which
has some performance implications),
FTR, after thinking about it, I'm not even
http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworks seems to be the place where folks are
registering their respective web frameworks.
I'd like to move some of the frameworks which are currently in the various
categories which haven't been active in a few years. In particular, I'd like
to move any
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:11 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com
wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:47 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
In the past when we've gotten down to specifics, the only
holdup has been
On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 01:33 +0200, Armin Ronacher wrote:
Hi,
On 7/17/10 1:20 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Let me know if I'm missing something.
The only thing you miss is that the bytes type of Python 3 is badly
supported in the stdlib (not an issue if we reimplement everything in
our
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 23:38 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com
wrote:
Nah, not nearly that hard:
path_info =
urllib.parse.unquote_to_bytes(environ['wsgi.raw_path_info']).decode
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 20:05 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 07:03 PM 9/15/2010 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
A PEP was submitted and accepted today for a WSGI successor protocol
named Web3:
http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-0444/
I'd encourage other folks to suggest improvements to that spec
It's, e.g.
b'8080'
.. instead of the integer value 8080.
Apparently the type of this value was not spelled out sufficiently in
the WSGI spec and string values and integer values were used
interchangeably, making it harder to join them with the other values in
the environ (a common thing to want
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 12:01 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
Well, reiterating some things I've said before:
* This is clearly just WSGI slightly reworked, why the new name?
The PEP says Web3 is clearly a WSGI derivative; it only uses a
different name than WSGI in order to indicate that it is not in
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 14:04 -0400, P.J. Eby wrote:
At 10:35 AM 9/16/2010 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
No comments on the rest except to note that at this point it looks
unlikely that we can make everyone happy (or even get an agreement to
adopt what would be the long-term technically optimal
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 19:47 +0300, Ionel Maries Cristian wrote:
I don't like this proposal at all. Besides having to go through the
bytes craziness the design is pretty backwards for middleware and
asynchronous applications.
We've acknowledged in other messages to this thread that the
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 05:29 +0200, Roberto De Ioris wrote:
About the *.file_wrapper removal, i suggest
a PSGI-like approach where 'body' can contains a File Object.
def file_app(environ):
fd = open('/tmp/pippo.txt', 'r')
status = b'200 OK'
headers = [(b'Content-type',
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 21:52 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'm -0 on the server trying to guess the Content-Length header. It just
doesn't seem like much of a burden to place on an application and it's
easier to specify that an application must do this than it is to specify
how a server
in the specification at all, so as not to break people's
expectations. I know that when I change it to not use any CGI names, it
will be received poorly, but I can't think of a better idea.
- C
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 19:03 -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
A PEP was submitted and accepted today
For what it's worth, I'm happy with the changes made to WSGI 1 that
produced PEP .
I'm unlikely to champion PEP 444 going forward. It has already served
its primary duty to me personally (which was to catalyze the
formalization of some specification that is Python 3 inclusive).
However,
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 17:16 +0200, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 24.10.2010 16:40, schrieb Chris McDonough:
On Sun, 2010-10-24 at 10:17 +0300, Armin Ronacher wrote:
I have to admit that my interest in Python 3 is not very high and I am
most likely not the most reliable person when it comes
PEP 444 has no champion currently. Both Armin and I have basically left
it behind. It would be great if you wanted to be its champion.
- C
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 03:12 -0800, Alice Bevan-McGregor wrote:
(A version of this is is available at http://web-core.org/2.0/pep-0444/ —
links are
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 09:32 -0800, Alice Bevan-McGregor wrote:
PEP 444 has no champion currently. Both Armin and I have basically left it
behind. It would be great if you wanted to be its champion.
Done.
As I already have a functional, performant HTTP server[1] and example
filter[2]
On Sun, 2011-01-02 at 09:21 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Graham, I hope that you can stop being grumpy about the process that
is being followed and start using your passion to write up a critique
of the technical merits of Alice's draft. You don't have to attack the
whole draft at once --
Does anyone know of a pure-Python WSGI server that:
- Is distributed indepdently from a web framework or larger whole.
- Runs on UNIX and Windows.
- Runs on both Python 2 and Python 3.
- Has good test coverage.
- Is useful in production.
(I sent this already to the Pylons-discuss maillist
Perrenial topic, it seems, from the archives.
As far as I can tell from PEP , every WSGI application that wants to
run on both Python 2 and Python 3 and which uses PATH_INFO will need to
define a helper function something like this:
import sys
def decode_path_info(environ,
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 17:39 -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
The standard way to do this would be to define an optional server
extension API supplied in the environ; for example, a
'x-wsgiorg.register_shutdown' function.
Unlikely, AFACIT, as shutdown may happen when no request is active.
Even if this
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 20:54 -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
2012/2/20 Chris McDonough chr...@plope.com
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 17:39 -0500, PJ Eby wrote:
The standard way to do this would be to define an optional
server
extension API supplied in the environ; for example
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 09:06 +1100, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
If you want to be able to control a thread like that from an atexit
callback, you need to create the thread as daemonised. Ie.
setDaemon(True) call on thread.
By default a thread will actually inherit the daemon flag from the
52 matches
Mail list logo
