On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Sasha Hart <s...@sashahart.net> wrote:
> I do really like the idea of having a quick WSGI runner in the stdlib, > What's kind of funny is that this was actually one of the original use cases that resulted in the invention of WSGI; back in the early 2000's, PEAK had its own internal protocol called "runCGI", and part of the idea was that we had a command line tool that could run things implementing that interface from the command line, with servers for fastcgi, cgi, SimpleHTTPServer, and so on. Ah well, that's a bit off-topic. But mainly, it's the reason I never got thought of actually making wsgi_ref.simple_server actually do that stuff; I already had a runner in PEAK that would do that kind of thing and launch a browser too. Despite inspiring simple_server, it completely slipped my mind that it'd be a good idea to put that stuff in wsgiref, too! Regarding modules vs. files, I don't really care that much which way the capability is spelled, as long as the file vs. module distinction is explicit. "-m " isn't a lot to add to a command line, and neither is "-f ". If there's no consensus, just require that one or the other be specified, and inconvenience both groups of people equally. ;-)
_______________________________________________ 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
