On Nov 23, 4:00 am, Istvan Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 21, 12:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > I would say that that is now debatable. Overall mod_wsgi is probably a > > better package in terms of what it has to offer. Only thing against > > mod_wsgi at this point is peoples willingness to accept something that > > is new in conjunction with Linux distributions and web hosting > > companies being slow to adopt new packages. > > Yes that is to be expected, many people want someone else to pay the > early adopter's costs. Nonetheless mod_wsgi seems like the right > direction to move the python world. > > One confounding factor that may slow its adoption could be the need of > running plain old CGI in an efficient way. I'm not sure how that fits > into the WSGI picture.
Do note that using mod_wsgi doesn't preclude you still running plain old CGI scripts using mod_cgi or mod_cgid. As to making it more efficient, one can go two paths on this. The preferred path would be to put in the effort to convert the Python CGI application to WSGI. If one still needs to run it as CGI with other hosting solutions, then use a CGI-WSGI adapter. Second, albeit a bit of a kludge, just like mod_python.cgihandler is a kludge, is to emulate the CGI environment on top of WSGI. This would work if using single threaded Apache prefork MPM, or using mod_wsgi daemon mode with multiple processes but where each is single threaded. It wouldn't be practical though to do it for multithread Apache worker MPM, or multithreaded daemon processes with mod_wsgi daemon mode. Because of how Python leaks environment variables between sub interpreters, you would also only want to be running one sub interpreter within a process. This would be fine if using mod_wsgi daemon mode as different CGI scripts could be delegated to run in different daemon processes as necessary to keep them separate, but may not be practical if using embedded mode if hosting a range of other WSGI applications at the same time in embedded mode. So, it is doable, but effort would be better off expended at least converting the Python CGI script to WSGI instead. It would save a lot of trouble in the long run, especially with CGI scripts which weren't designed to be run multiple times in same memory context, ie., where they don't clean up after themselves. If someone really wanted to host an existing CGI script under WSGI where the same process was used over and over, and had good reasons for doing so, it wouldn't be hard for me to come up with a workable adapter that allowed it. Graham -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
