Graham Dumpleton
graham.dumpleton at gmail.com
Sat Dec 22 18:12:55 EST 2007
FWIW, the discussion about Python 3.0 and WSGI can be found at: http://groups.google.com/group/python-web-sig/browse_frm/thread/f8f54fe99485312a This may give a feel for what some of the issues will be. Graham On 23/12/2007, Bart <scarfboy at gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 2007 10:51 AM, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumpleton at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21/12/2007, Alec Matusis <matusis at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > WSGI is the way Python is heading and way more hosting options available > > > for it. > > > > > > Does this mean that mod_python will become unmaintained or obsolete? > > > > One can still use mod_python as a way of hosting WSGI applications, > > although for Apache hosting mod_wsgi is a more purpose built solution > > for that. There are some things obviously that mod_python can do that > > mod_wsgi can't though because the point of mod_python is to allow > > programming against Apache interfaces and not restricted WSGI > > interface. > > > > I think the bigger challenge to mod_python is Python 3.0. The problem > > there is the change to the standard string type being unicode, with > > byte strings being distinct and more limited than current string type > > in Python 2.X. > > > > The mod_python interfaces are all going to have to be updated to cope > > with this change and it will probably mean that applications on top > > will also need to be changed. Same sort of changes will need to occur > > to a degree with WSGI applications as well but not as much because its > > interface is much more restricted in scope. > > > > What I would be concerned about is whether anyone would step forward > > to do the hard work on updating mod_python for Python 3.0. I know that > > I will not be that person as my priorities lie elsewhere these days. > > So, probably important for people to start thinking about and > > discussing what they would like to see happen with mod_python. > > I'm guessing few people would even know what those changes are. > > The unicode support thing ought to be simple - since it's > lacking right now, it just needs to be introduced right. > Of course, internally it's probably more complex. > > I think it's going to be harder to keep mod_python together. > there is no benevolent dictator, so I fear things are just going > to get more complex (I already think m_p could stand a lot > of simplification - it's not something I'd suggest friends to use) > and sort of complexify itself out of relevance. Which is a pity. > > --Bart > _______________________________________________ > Mod_python mailing list > Mod_python at modpython.org > http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python >
|