|
Graham Dumpleton
graham.dumpleton at gmail.com
Sun Jun 22 22:32:45 EDT 2008
It is okay read only, which is how mod_python uses it. 2008/6/23 Massimo Di Pierro <MDiPierro at cs.depaul.edu>: > Am I wrong or using os.environ is not even thread safe? > Are you also saying that Django 1.0 will continue to use os.environ? > > Massimo > > On Jun 22, 2008, at 9:10 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > >> It wasn't listed because I believe it was already stated by OP that it >> worked with WSGI and thus they knew that already. I therefore didn't >> need to tell him. >> >> As much as many frameworks can run on WSGI and may even state or aim >> to be 100% WSGI compliant, that doesn't mean they fit with some of the >> greater ideals of WSGI that some would like to see. The thing which >> Django folks will not be addressing is their reliance on os.environ to >> define location of configuration information. WSGI doesn't say they >> can't do this, but relying on global data like that in any WSGI >> compliant framework limits one to having one instance of that >> framework within a Python interpreter instance. This makes it >> impossible with one Python interpreter instance to mount more than one >> application reliant on that framework. Thus one is forced to use >> multiple processes and/or interpreters instead. >> >> Graham >> >> 2008/6/22 Massimo Di Pierro <mdipierro at cs.depaul.edu>: >>> >>> I read the post again and I noticed you omitted web2py from the list of >>> "major frameworks" that support wsgi. I would like to add that web2py >>> uses >>> the cherrypy 3.0 wsgiserver (unmodified) so it is as wsgi compliant as >>> cherrypy is. Django instead, for example, lists "Making Django 100% WSGI >>> compliant." as one of the roadmark targets for version 1.0. >>> Massimo >>> On Jun 21, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote: >>> >>> Dear Graham, >>> a couple of months ago you send me some very constructive comments about >>> web2py. In particular you suggested that we replaced all relative paths >>> with >>> absolutes paths. I really appreciate your advice and this issue was >>> addressed within one week of your email. If there is any other issue that >>> you find with the web2py source code, please let us know and it will be >>> addresses. At this point we are not aware of any open issue. >>> You also refer to "heard various critiques by others about it". Could you >>> be >>> more explicit? Unfortunately there are many incorrect posts online about >>> web2py written by people who have not tried it or read the specs. >>> Massimo >>> >>> Graham Dumpleton graham.dumpleton at gmail.com write: >>>> >>>> All the major frameworks support WSGI, Django, TurboGears, Pylons, >>>> CherryPy, web.py and up and comers such as Werkzeug. >>>> Although Django may say use mod_python, general consensus is rapidly >>>> moving to use of mod_wsgi, it is just that developers who maintain web >>>> site haven't decided yet to make a statement that mod_wsgi is equally >>>> as capable as mod_python. >>>> As to web2py, it would not be one of my first choices. It may be more >>>> glitzy and have better marketing speak around it, but having seen some >>>> of the code in it and heard various critiques by others about it, I'd >>>> be looking elsewhere. I'd probably suggest Django for high level >>>> framework and Werkzeug if you want a more low level nuts and bolts >>>> approach. >>>> >>>> Graham<ATT00001.txt> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mod_python mailing list >>> Mod_python at modpython.org >>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python >>> >>> > >
|