> 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 >> for the directory in which it exists. This would allow a user to simply >> drop a file on the webserver and have it work. It would be excellent for >> shared hosting solutions.
Ian Bicking wrote: > Would it? From what I can tell, mod_php is very popular in shared > hosts, but neither mod_python nor mod_perl are. I don't think mod_* > makes it necessarily host-friendly. But from what I can tell of > mod_python, it would be relatively easy to have something like .wsgi > files, and give them a handler that runs them as WSGI apps. More to the point, is mod_wsgi possible? I thought it would be a great replacement for mod_scgi and the framework-specific ones (mod_webkit), but banged my head against the wall when it came to 'wsgi.input' because you can't pickle an open file object or transmit it to another process. So mod_wsgi couldn't talk to an application server unless it were something like SCGI in disguise. I suppose it could work like mod_python with several parallel servers running in Apache child processes. But would be different enough from mod_python to justify a new name? More to the point, would it be reliable? I hear lots of problem reports about FastCGI and mod_python's reliability, but I don't hear such reports for mod_scgi, mod_webkit, or the various CGI adapters. For myself, mod_webkit has been rock solid except for one computer it wouldn't compile on, and likewise mod_scgi has been reliable except for a bug with certain Reload requests (when the user presses Reload), and I've never had a problem with a CGI adapter, but I would hesitate to use the others or something based on them until they get more reliability. mod_php is popular because it was marketed early on as the *only* way to run PHP, and is precompiled in many OS distributions. I doubt it's available on *most* public webhosts. Most webhosts offer only ASP or CGI if they offer any dynamic services at all. Getting them to support *any* Python mod_* option is an uphill battle in itself, so the existence of mod_wsgi won't really make a difference. Which doesn't mean it's not worth building for our own webservers. A reference implementation of mod_python + WSGI as described above would be nice, so we can see how feasable/reliable/efficient it is compared to the other adapters. Maybe it could replace all of them in market share. Or maybe we just need PHPython. :) -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
