On 3/29/2015 1:19 PM, John Nagle wrote: > On 3/29/2015 12:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >> John Nagle <na...@animats.com> writes: >> >>> The Python 3 documentation at >>> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/webservers.html >>> >>> recommends "flup" >> >> I disagree. In a section where it describes FastCGI, it presents a tiny >> example as a way to test the packages installed. The example happens to >> use ‘flup’. >> >> That's quite different from a recommendation. >> >>> I get the feeling, again, that nobody actually uses this stuff. > > So do others. See "http://www.slideshare.net/mitsuhiko/wsgi-on-python-3"; > > "A talk about the current state of WSGI on Python 3. Warning: > depressing. But it does not have to stay that way" > > "wsgiref on Python 3 is just broken." > > "Python 3 that is supposed to make unicode easier is causing a lot more > problems than unicode environments on Python 2" > > "The Python 3 stdlib is currently incredible broken but because there > are so few users, these bugs stay under the radar." > > That was written in 2010. Most of that stuff is still broken. > Here's his detailed critique: > > http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2010/5/25/wsgi-on-python-3/ > >> You have found yet another poorly-maintained package which is not at all >> the responsibility of Python 3. >> Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault? > > That's a denial problem. Uncritical fanboys are part of the problem, > not part of the solution. > > Practical problems: the version of "flup" on PyPi is so out of date > as to be useless. The original author abandoned the software. There > are at least six forks of "flup" on Github: > > https://github.com/Pyha/flup-py3.3 > https://github.com/Janno/flup-py3.3 > https://github.com/pquentin/flup-py3 > https://github.com/SmartReceipt/flup-server > https://github.com/dnephin/TreeOrg/tree/master/app-root/flup > https://github.com/noxan/flup > > The first three look reasonably promising; the last three look > abandoned. But why are there so many, and what are the > differences between the first three? Probably nobody > was able to fix all the Python 3 related problems documented by > Ronacher in 2010. None of the versions have much usage. Nobody > thought their version was good enough to push it to Pypi. > > All those people had to struggle to try to get a basic capability for > web development using Python to work. To use WSGI with Python 3, you > need to do a lot of work. Or stay with Python 2. > > Python 3 still isn't ready for prime time. > > John Nagle >
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
