> For example, consider an extreme case such as WSGI. Through a goal of > WSGI being portability it effectively ignores practically everything > that Apache has to offer. Thus although Apache offers support for > authentication and authorisation, a WSGI user would have to implement > this functionality themselves or use a third party WSGI component that > does it for them.
OTOH WSGI auth middleware already supports more auth methods than apache2 itself. > Another example is Apache's support for enabling > compression of content returned to a client. The WSGI approach is again > to duplicate that functionality. the gzip middleware is really just an example... nobody would use that in production. > Similarly with other Apache features > such as URL rewriting, proxying, caching etc etc. Well, not everybody can use Apache ... and again there's already WSGI middleware that's more flexible than the Apache modules for most of the features you mention. It's not that I think mod_python doesn't have uses.. I just think it's not practical to make python web applications targeted solely to mod_python. -- damjan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
