Graham Dumpleton
graham.dumpleton at gmail.com
Mon May 14 20:11:12 EDT 2007
On 15/05/07, Roger Binns <rogerb at rogerbinns.com> wrote: > Fortunately I am using such a trivial amount of mod_python that my own C > code apache module to call my own Python code isn't too onerous. > > > The only practical way of getting a complete Python binding for Apache > > and APR C interfaces is to completely start over and use SWIG. > > It looked like modperl used SWIG so in theory their .i file could be > swiped as a starting point. > > > Even then it is mostly useless in the context of mod_python > > anyway and a whole new base level module for doing Python in Apache is > > needed to support it. At this point there hasn't really been anyone > > else seriously interested in going that path, at least not to extent > > they appeared to be prepared to spend a great deal of time themselves > > working on it. > > Have you tried asking the Perl folks since they are already maintaining > a swig'ed interface. It may not be that much incremental work to add > python. Last time I looked Perl doesn't use SWIG. Instead they use their own system of creating the wrappers in some sort of automated way. What are you looking at that makes you believe they use SWIG? The only reference to SWIG in all the source code is: """The mod_perl 2.0 generator is a custom suite of modules specifically tuned for gluing Apache and allows for complete control over everything, providing many possibilities none of xsubpp, SWIG or Inline.pm are designed to do. Advantages to generating the glue code include:""" Which to me reads in part as saying why their way of doing things is better than what could be achieved using SWIG. Graham
|