Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

John Nagle writes: > That's part of the problem of having all those forks - now > each bug has to be fixed in each fork. Agreed, there is too much focus on developing everything in isolation, too little focus on getting different libraries working together. > After all this, the production syst

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 3/30/2015 4:07 PM, John Nagle wrote: After all this, the production system is now running entirely on Python 3. I am really glad to read this. Aside from a bit of hyperbole, I appreciate the report of successes and difficulties. I also understand better that 'Python 3' means something d

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 3/29/2015 7:11 PM, John Nagle wrote: > Meanwhile, I've found two more variants on "flup" > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/flipflop > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/flup6 > > All of these are descended from the original "flup" code base. > > PyPi also has > > fcgi-python (

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:47:23 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Paul Rubin > wrote: >> 2b. John, thank you for describing your experience and making the >> community's picture of the current overall state of Python 3 more >> accurate. It was apparently a bit too rosy

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 11:57:54 -0700, John Nagle wrote: > The Python 2 module "fcgi" is gone in Python 3. Was this part of the python standard library, or was it a third party library? I can only find cgi documentation in the python 2 core documentatio

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 30/03/2015 02:22, Ben Finney wrote: Paul Rubin writes: He reported hitting more snags than some of us might expect purely from the Python 3 propaganda ("oh, just run the 2to3 utility and it does everything for you"). Propaganda? Are you referring to the official guidelines for migrating

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 10:05:37 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote: > 2b. John, thank you for describing your experience and making the > community's picture of the current overall state of Python 3 more > accurate. It was apparently a bit too rosy before, and we should avoid > fostering unrealis

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > 2b. John, thank you for describing your experience and making the > community's picture of the current overall state of Python 3 more > accurate. It was apparently a bit too rosy before, and we should avoid > fostering unrealistic expectations

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

I agree with you. Web programmers should use maintained libraries. In web world, most common libraries maintained are support Python 3. I (maintainer of PyMySQL and mysqlclient) uses Python 3 for daily job, and use Python 2 only for test my libraries. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Carl Meye

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Rustom Mody writes: > On a more serious note you can (and IMHO should) orthogonalize: > 1. John I dont appreciate your tone > 2. John thank your for the bug-report Fair enough, but I'd split #2 into 2a. John, thank you for the bug report describing specific problems we can fix, bringing Python 3

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 03/29/2015 09:30 PM, Michael Torrie wrote: > What does this have to do with Python itself? I'm not completely sure, > but maybe it's about the Python community. What's the way forward? I > have no idea. At the very least John is frustrated by the community's > lack of apparent interest in fi

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 03/29/2015 04:58 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > You have provided none for your assertion that an unmaintained > third-party library is somehow a special failure of Python 3. A language is only as good as its libraries, either the standard library that ships with the language, or third-party libraries

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 8:37:13 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > > One way is take reports like John's seriously and receive them > > with thanks, instead of attacking the messenger. > > If a messenger wants to be thanked, he should st

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Chris Angelico writes: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > > One way is take reports like John's seriously and receive them > > with thanks, instead of attacking the messenger. Please note that, where John Nagle has made supportible criticisms, I have thanked him for them. Th

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > One way is take reports like John's seriously and receive them > with thanks, instead of attacking the messenger. If a messenger wants to be thanked, he should start by not attacking the recipients. Respect goes both ways. Make your post with a

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Ben Finney writes: > Then you're not in a position to defend the claim. I'm addressing my > critical inquiry to the person who made the claim that they “get screwed > by Python 3”. I'd say that the screw was expecting the migration to be easier than it actually was. This might result from there

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Paul Rubin writes: > I don't know that I'd say that the language or ecosystem is > "responsible". Then you're not in a position to defend the claim. I'm addressing my critical inquiry to the person who made the claim that they “get screwed by Python 3”. -- \ “Fox News gives you both side

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

John Nagle writes: > CPAN, the Perl module archive, has some curation and testing. PyPi > lacks that, which is how we end up with situations like this, where > there are 11 ways to do something, most of which don't work. That is a valid criticism of PyPI, and more broadly of the Python distribut

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Ben Finney writes: > Which doesn't address the assertion that this is somehow a special > responsibility of “Python 3”, which I asked critical questions about. "Python 3" in those sorts of contexts refers to the whole ecosystem including the 3rd party libs. I don't know that I'd say that the lan

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 3/29/2015 6:03 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Those questions seem unfair to me. Nagle posted an experience report > about a real-world project to migrate a Python 2 codebase to Python 3. > He reported hitting more snags than some of us might expect purely from > the Python 3 propaganda ("oh, just run

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Paul Rubin writes: > Ben Finney writes: > > Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault? What do you > > expect to change *about Python 3* that would address the perceived > > problem? Whose responsibility is it to do that? > > Those questions seem unfair to me. Nagle posted an exp

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

Ben Finney writes: > Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault? What do you > expect to change *about Python 3* that would address the perceived > problem? Whose responsibility is it to do that? Those questions seem unfair to me. Nagle posted an experience report about a real-wor

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 2015-03-29, John Nagle wrote: > The Python 2 module "fcgi" is gone in Python 3. > The Python 3 documentation at > > https://docs.python.org/3/howto/webservers.html > > recommends "flup" and links here: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/flup/1.0 > > That hasn't been updated since 2007, and the SV

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

John Nagle writes: (for some reason quoting himself extensively without further comment) > On 3/29/2015 1:19 PM, John Nagle wrote: > > On 3/29/2015 12:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > >> John Nagle writes: > >>> The Python 3 documentation at > >>> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/webservers.html > >>>

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 3/29/2015 1:19 PM, John Nagle wrote: > On 3/29/2015 12:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >> John Nagle 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

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 29/03/2015 22:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:57 am, John Nagle wrote: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/flup/1.0 That hasn't been updated since 2007, and the SVN repository linked there is gone. The recommended version is abandoned. Welcome to the Internet. Links die and do

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:57 am, John Nagle wrote: > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/flup/1.0 > > That hasn't been updated since 2007, and the SVN repository linked there > is gone. The recommended version is abandoned. Welcome to the Internet. Links die and documentation gets outdated. If only thin

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

John Nagle : > There's "wsgiref", which looks more promising, but has a different > interface. That's not what the Python documentation recommends as the > first choice, but it's a standard module. > > I keep thinking I'm almost done with Python 3 hell, but then I get > screwed by Python 3 again.

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

John Nagle 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 dif

Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

On 2015.03.29 13:57, John Nagle wrote: > There's "wsgiref", which looks more promising, but has a different > interface. That's not what the Python documentation recommends as > the first choice, but it's a standard module. Oh? > These days, FastCGI is never used directly. Just like mod_python, i