[mod_python] Re: errors in default mod_python docs for 3.2.10 publisher setup

Graham Dumpleton grahamd at dscpl.com.au
Sat Sep 2 19:45:17 EDT 2006

On 03/09/2006, at 9:22 AM, Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Graham Dumpleton <grahamd at dscpl.com.au>
>> All I can say is that we know the documentation is inadequate.
> Which I think is a shame.  Python is an excellent language.
> mod_python is an obvious way to leverage that.  It should end
> up killing the other server-side systems.  But if the documentation
> sets the user up for frustrations, it will never happen.

More of a frustration at this point has been the large number of little
problems with mod_python and lack of API for more useful features
of Apache. Have a look through:


and you will see we have fixing and improving mod_python in more
than trivial ways for mod_python 3.3. This is where most of our
energy has been getting concentrated. There is not much point having
beautiful documentation if the software itself has so many problems
or can't be made to do what is needed anyway.

I too would like to see a decent framework like Django/Turbogears
but built direct on the foundations of Apache and mod_python and
using the features of Apache rather than just using it as a mere hopping
off point. It really just doesn't make sense to be ignoring all the  
that Apache provides in the way of access control, user authentication
etc etc. We just have a bit of work to do before this is going to be  
as viable.

>> We have been waiting for a long time for the ASF to setup a
>> [mod_python doc] wiki
> At whom would I throw my urging for this?

There is already a request in the ASF issue tracking system for it. The
people who handle these requests though generally have a lot of
other stuff to do as well, so it takes a while. There are some people
higher up in the ASF who monitor this list, so maybe they will see this
discussion, be kind to us, and see if they can get it moving more
quickly. :-)

>> Anyway, for myself I have given up waiting for the wiki and am
>> turning my existing mod_python articles into my own unofficial
>> wiki so I can at least more quickly add new stuff.
> Good idea.  Got a URL?  I'd be glad to help.  You could make
> a tree of unconverted mod_python doc and we could convert them
> as we touch them.  Though given the fairly simple nature of
> the document, it might not be hard to make a LaTeX-to-wiki
> converter for it.  Wasn't someone just asking about parsers?

Although I would like to see the LaTeX documentation done away
with and replaced with wiki based documentation, it wasn't my intent
to be doing that on my own wiki. My wiki was going to be a personal
wiki for my own stuff on mod_python and wasn't going to be writable
to anyone at this point in case I may want to use the collection of  
I create for something else later.

>> In respect of AddHandler, SetHandler, MultiViews etc, you need to   
>> realise
>> that mod_python is an extension for Apache. Thus, such things like  
>> this
>> aren't actually implemented by mod_python but are implemented
>> by Apache. To use mod_python properly, you also need to understand
>> Apache to some degree and that means also referring to the Apache
>> documentation.
> Things I'm sure I'd have eventually had to explore as my needs went
> deeper, but at the "get me up and running" phase, I want nothing to
> do with server internals or the million configurable items that I
> could be tweaking.  The shorter and straighter the time from the
> download button to the display of "hello, world!" on the browser
> screen, the better mod_python will sell.

And you can get it working without needing them, as long as you use .py
in the URL all the time. I only point it out as too often people  
using SetHandler
see it working without .py and think that translates to AddHandler  
when it
doesn't without the extra magic stuff I mentioned.


More information about the Mod_python mailing list