On Nov 22, 11:00 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.
Practically running CGI quickly is hard. All of the modern batch of frameworks contain too much code to do this; the startup cost of loading all that code for each request is just too much. For commodity servers that only support CGI scripts, and periodically kill long-running requests, I had an idea for making WSGI applications look like CGI scripts: http://blog.ianbicking.org/2007/08/03/fast-cgi-that-isnt-fastcgi/ -- basically using the CGI script as a pipe to the application, with some process management built in. Of course, it still would need to be implemented. I suspect it would be a fairly simple task for someone familiar with C. This isn't really a big deal for most professional web developers, who can control their server environment, but lack of this style of deployment does make it a lot harder for web application users to use Python applications. Ian -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
