Graham Dumpleton ha scritto: > [...] > > Please don't use 'mod_wsgi', use 'nginx' as you originally said. > > There is already going to be enough confusion around you using the > 'mod_wsgi' name when the Apache WSGI implementation came first. I > really wish now that I had insisted you specifically call it > 'nginx_wsgi' even though you based it on Apache mod_wsgi. T
No, I called it mod_wsgi because it is "module wsgi". To reduce confusion, as an example, in my Mercurial repository, mod_wsgi is under the 'nginx' directory. I will try to make sure that the "nginx" prefix will always well visible. > o try to be > compatible is one thing, to use the same name in a way that is > confusing is just going to cause more and more problems down the track > if nginx mod_wsgi does get to a point of being usuable. > > Whatever you do, please do not go releasing any distinct Python > module/package called 'mod_wsgi' as the Apache mod_wsgi code is all > set up around it being able to do that already, with the assumption > that it has ownership of that namespace because it started using the > name first. But this is a "no problem" :). A WSGI application can be embedded in Apache *or* in nginx. I would like to use a common name/interface so applications can easily be ported from Nginx to Apache and viceversa. > [...] > > Any suggestions on a consensus on how we resolve all this and avoid > arguments down the track are more than welcome. Presuming that is that > people want to object to Apache mod_wsgi assuming that it can use > 'mod_wsgi' for the name of a Python module/package. :-) > > Graham > Manlio Perillo _______________________________________________ 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
