fred at adventistcare.org
Thu Oct 12 16:05:47 EDT 2006
I tried that and got a "module not found", could you send me a copy of your <Directory... from the .conf file. Perhaps I just had a brain fart. I like the approach you describe; that's what we did with cgi before changing to mod_python. -----Original Message----- From: Jorey Bump [mailto:list at joreybump.com] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:00 PM To: Sells, Fred Cc: mod_python at modpython.org Subject: Re: [mod_python] use publisher without .py file extension Sells, Fred wrote: > I would like to be able to use the mod_python.publisher without requiring > using the .py suffix in my file. The idea is to not disclose to the user > that python is being used as one more bit of security. > > I tried it but it seems as if the mod_python import is expecting standard > python modules. > > While I would like a generic solution, each "application" is in it's own > subdirectory and would have very few (hopefully 1) file that is the single > point of access to all backend logic. Thus I could revise the apache .conf > file whenever a new application is added if I must. This isn't necessary. I create a single directory for the frontends, then use SetHandler to configure apache to use Publisher for everything in that directory. The .py extension is no longer needed. The frontends are minimal, serving as gateways to the backend logic, as you describe. The only caveat is that the directory must contain only python modules, with other resources placed elsewhere. This can be a benefit, if you like keeping your code separate from images, stylesheets, etc. But there also ways around this limitation, using a more complex configuration. I used to "register" publisher applications in the conf file, as you describe, but found it to be a burden. It's much nicer to just have a directory to drop files into.