On 29/11/2007, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > As for general issues around best way to perform application > > initialisation, problem is that what is the most appropriate way may > > depend on the specific hosting mechanism. There isn't necessarily > > going to be one way that will suit all ways that WSGI can be hosted, > > thus why there partly isn't a standard on how to do it. > > I appreciate all the good points you made above that I snipped, however, > surely the aim of WSGI is to allow the application author to not have to > worry so much about deployment but what I'm hearing is that if you get > your application implementation wrong, you'll suffer badly in lots of > deployment situations.
The WSGI specification only talks about the request interface between application and underlying web server. It doesn't really say anything about deployment issues. Thus, different hosting solutions provided different means of doing it. Remember, that various underlying servers now used for hosting WSGI applications existed before the WSGI specification came along. Also, various applications existed before as well and have been converted to be able to host on top of WSGI adapters. For some of those, they still carry setup requirements which hark back to the original way they were hosted. There is also no consistency in how configuration is done. Such is the way things are. :-) Graham _______________________________________________ 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
