Anthony, I will be more careful with the words I use, because there can be a discrepancy between what you receive and what I intend to say. You can assume that I do not have any issue with you and what you say, except, possibly at a technical or conceptual level in the area of concern. Now, it may be that even this answer here is misinterpreted, as if I see a problem. There is no problem. Every thing is fine.
On Monday, 20 June 2016 22:40:37 UTC-4, Anthony wrote: > > Dominic, it seems you are responding to a discussion that is happening > elsewhere rather than this discussion. > > >> I have been pushed to explain the use case and finally the discussion was >> about this use case and the question became this use case. >> > > You provided the use case in your original post. I have requested that you > provide some further details regarding setup, update process, etc., and > suggested it would be helpful for you to detail a workflow (perhaps based > on what you have seen with PHP frameworks), but those requests were with > regard to your interest in a wrapper application. The reason is there are > different ways of thinking about and implementing a "wrapper," and the best > approach depends on the context. For example, the wrapper could be a shell > application, and the application developer could provide an application > that simply unzips on top of that (or could provide a set of web2py plugins > to serve as the application), but the applicability of that approach would > depend on the setup, business rules, and update mechanism. > > >> Perhaps, the rule here is that a question should be how to address a >> practical use case with no attach to a particular approach. >> > > No, there is no rule, but if you are looking for a specific solution, you > must specify the problem in sufficient detail. Just saying "wrapper > application" is too vague. > > >> There was some suggestions here that the use of wrapper applications is >> not a different approach. >> > > And where have you seen this suggestion? > Great, I might have seen a suggestion where there was not. Maybe I did not describe correctly the situation. It's the general idea. You said it's not well defined that I should give up on this, etc. If I misinterpreted you, it's not a big deal. If you agree that it is a valid different concept on its own, then great. I just meant to say that it was not clear to me that it was understood that way. If I am wrong, then it is very positive. > >> I have been talking about the value of the concept of wrapper >> application to pass the config file location, but it was not my intention >> at all to discuss that. I just wanted to know if it is possible to do this >> in web2py as we can in PHP [without an extra HTTP request]. I do not >> complain. I appreciate very much what we discuss and I am sure we will find >> a way to wrap an application in web2py without an extra HTTP request. It >> just did not happen, because we did not focus on this and instead tried to >> argue that it is not interesting. >> > > But it did happen, in the second sentence of this entire discussion. > > No, it did not. The wrapper in wsgihandle.py is not a wrapper application. It does not receive directly the HTTP requests from the HTTP server or whatever intermediary there is in between the server and the web2py applications. It is a significant difference. > Anthony > -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
