[mod_python] Problem with .psp_

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:


This may give a feel for what some of the issues will be.


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

More information about the Mod_python mailing list