--- On Wed, 9/23/09, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com> wrote: > Application portability is the main wsgi use case. I > think that > requires a number of things that wsgi doesn't provide - > wsgi knows > nothing of data stores for example. Application > portability is the > main thing we should be interested in, and strive for > it. Not just on > web servers, but on web frameworks too.
Perhaps there should be a notion of managed application resources built as another layer on top of WSGI so you can easily switch between storing things in MySQL or the file system or Google App Engine data store or whatever. Perhaps something along these lines? http://aaron.oirt.rutgers.edu/myapp/docs/W1000_1000.resources > There's no way I can take any python web application, copy > the files > onto any python web server and have it work. php can > do this, but we > still can not do this with python. I can :). This doesn't require changes to WSGI, however, just appropriate additional layers on top of WSGI which you can call WSGI++ or give another name -- I don't know which is better -- ask a marketing person. -- Aaron Watters http://aaron.oirt.rutgers.edu/myapp/docs/W1100_1400.calc === Little birds are playing Bagpipes on the shore Where the tourists snore "Thanks!" they say, "'Tis thrilling!" "Take, oh take this shilling!" "Let us have no more!" -- Lewis Carroll _______________________________________________ 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
