[mod_python] Re: mod_python 3.3.1 bug report

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

More information about the Mod_python mailing list