On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:53 AM, P.J. Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> wrote: > At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +0000, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Alice BevanMcGregor <al...@...> writes: > > [1] http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So, >> while we are at it, could we get rid of the "CGI server example" in this new >> SWGI spec? This is 2011, and we should promote modern idioms, not encourage >> people to do 1995 Web programming. 10 years ago, CGI was already frown upon. >> (and even the idea that WSGI should provide some kind of CGI compatibility >> sounds a bit ridiculous to me) Regards Antoine. > > I still use CGI for the odd one-off, testing, prototyping, etc., and it's by > far the easiest thing to deploy on a lot of web hosts. Hell, even Google > App Engine *emulates* CGI in its default deployment configuration, IIRC. So > it's not exactly obsolete.
Right. Note that App Engine does not copy the full CGI mechanism -- it doesn't start a new process for each request. But it does use os.environ to set the request parameters for each request. However, in practice, all but the simplest test apps use a custom WSGI bridge, and we are considering dropping CGI in favor of WSGI in a future version of the App Engine runtime. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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