[mod_python] Re: [modwsgi] mod_python publisher

2009/11/11 Martijn Moeling <martijn at xs4us.nu>:
> Graham,
>
> Thank you, You gave me the answer I expected....
>
> I need a MOD_PYTHON_WSGI module so I will build one. I do not mind it to go public if it helps.
> It will be a pure Python module so people can easily ajust/extend for there own needs...
> at first I will create a request object and then I will add stuff like sessions.
>
> Since I never have used the publisher handler (and to be true not even know how it works) I will leave that to others.
>
> I'll keep the mod_python and mod_wsgi groups up to date, but I might bother you with some minor details.
> Is it OK for me to re-use MP code?

As long as you respect the fact that it is licenced under Apache
Licence 2.0 and abide by conditions of that licence you are fine.

Graham

> I think MP programmers like the way they can define their application without a framework, like me the transition to WSGI cannot include a framework that doubles work already done (my system is an implementation on its own framework).
> People interested might email me to get their "wishes" and needs.
>
> we'll see
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:29 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/11 Martijn Moeling <martijn at xs4us.nu>:
>>> Graham,
>>>
>>> I was searching the list searching for answers about moving away from MP to MWSGI and stumbled upon the below conversation.
>>> Because of the workings of MP my application is heavily based around passing reference to the Request object.
>>>
>>> Also I have modified Session.py from the MP package to store session data in a database behind SQLAlchemy.
>>> Due to trial and error i found out that connecting to the database on each request with the Database closure in
>>> a fixup request was the best solution in MP not sure yet about WSGI but I would like a similar scenario (which is in the WSGI wiki examples)
>>>
>>> In the random number generation part of Session.py is some MP specific code (I do not seem to understand that part)
>>>
>>> I have been thinking of making a WSGI-MP adapter to get rid of the runtime or live troubles of MP being code compatible as base for MP applications.
>>> so yes I am interested, and I would not mind contributing.
>>
>> It isn't something I have time for these days. Can't even find time to
>> get next version of mod_wsgi released and only way I will achieve that
>> is to rip out some half done stuff I had added related to statistics
>> generation, deferring it to later or try and do it at Python code
>> level as an example rather than in C code of mod_wsgi itself.
>>
>> There have been some people who have mentioned before they were
>> constructing mod_python request like objects for use in WSGI
>> applications for porting, but seems they only do it for themselves and
>> aren't interested in making it public.
>>
>> BTW, mod_python only compiles on latest Apache 2.X versions by
>> applying a fix. In Apache 2.3 (2.4), even with that fix it is unlikely
>> to compile as they have changed quite a bit authorization handler
>> APIs. So, Apache 2.3 (2.4) may spell the end for mod_python unless
>> someone does the work in fixing mod_python.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2009/4/24 Matt Newville <matt.newville at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking to move from mod_python to mod_wsgi, and reading through
>>>>> the on-line documentation.
>>>>> 've been fairly happy with mod_python for my own scripts, but do
>>>>> appreciate that mod_wsgi is a better design and the future. I also
>>>>> want to update a MoinMoin wiki on the same server to using mod_wsgi,
>>>>> and am concerned about trying to have both mod_python and mod_wsgi
>>>>> running on the same server.
>>>>
>>>> You can run mod_python and mod_wsgi on the same server, but in that
>>>> case certain features of mod_wsgi don't work as mod_python takes
>>>> control of initialising Python.
>>>>
>>>>> Currently, I'm using mod_python's publisher handler for mapping url to
>>>>> python function name and arguments, and for basic authentication.  By
>>>>> themselves, the mod_python/publisher scripts I have  (ie, the code
>>>>> with "from mod_python import apache") are fairly small and simple and
>>>>> mostly manage a connection to larger python modules  for the
>>>>> application logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like there isn't an immediate replacement for these features
>>>>> within mod_wsgi, with the rationale given that such functionality is
>>>>> best handled elsewhere, perhaps in a larger framework.  Is this a
>>>>> correct reading?
>>>>
>>>> It is only intended that mod_wsgi provide the low level gateway to the
>>>> server itself. This is in contrast to mod_python which provides the
>>>> low level gateway to the server, but also high level handlers.
>>>> Personally I think that mod_python did this was wrong, and the high
>>>> level handlers should have been separate. Problem it now causes is
>>>> that people don't want to give up mod_python because they are bound to
>>>> APIs which are part of the mod_python package. If those high level
>>>> handlers were separate, then there would have been a better chance
>>>> that they could have been rehosted on alternatives such as WSGI to
>>>> allow portability and migration away from mod_python.
>>>>
>>>>> If so, what is the recommended path for those for
>>>>> whom the publisher handler was a good fit?  Are there recommended
>>>>> extensions that provide this functionality, or migration paths for
>>>>> code currently using mod_python publisher?
>>>>
>>>> There was someone on this list who was trying to come up with a
>>>> package which offered compatibility with mod_python.publisher but such
>>>> that it could be hosted on WSGI instead. For my mind, although it may
>>>> aid in migrating away from mod_python, I don't believe that an exactly
>>>> compatible system is a good idea, as mod_python.publisher has various
>>>> aspects which I regard as being broken.
>>>>
>>>> Although I have resisted before, partly due to lack of time, but also
>>>> because I had some bigger ideas in mind, I haven't pursued the idea of
>>>> creating a package which could be a stepping stone to get away from
>>>> mod_python and onto mod_wsgi instead. Since I am treading water a bit
>>>> at the moment working out what direction I am going to take with
>>>> mod_wsgi and whether I branch out and do something to improve fastcgi
>>>> hosting, maybe I can have a look at this a bit now.
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out, most of the work is already done, as my Vampire
>>>> package for mod_python had a rewritten mod_python.publisher
>>>> equivalent. This fixes some of the problems in mod_python.publisher
>>>> and makes it more flexible, but still doesn't fix some of the things I
>>>> hate most about mod_python.publisher.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I could take Vampire and repurpose it on top of WSGI and more
>>>> specifically mod_wsgi. The main thing I am missing to be able to do
>>>> that is a request object as obviously relied upon that from
>>>> mod_python. There are a couple of options there. First is to write my
>>>> own in order to avoid external dependencies, or use webob. There is
>>>> also Werkzeug, but it is much more than a request object so may be
>>>> bringing too much baggage.
>>>>
>>>> For forms processing, would just fall back on cgi.FieldStorage, which
>>>> does mean a loss of a few mod_python features, albeit not often used.
>>>> The only other thing, but which wasn't really a part of
>>>> mod_python.publisher, is session support. In some sort of first
>>>> version one could ignore session support though. Another future area
>>>> to look at might be to bring across PSP support into the package.
>>>>
>>>> The question is whether there is sufficient interest. In terms of
>>>> gauging that, have also cc'd this to mod_python list. If replying
>>>> please ensure you reply-all to both lists.
>>>>
>>>> Do note that I wouldn't aim for compatibility as me being a pedantic
>>>> ass means I will not allow some of the stuff in mod_python.publisher
>>>> which I think is wrong. Obviously the request object isn't going to be
>>>> the same, although maybe one could have a mode where by you use a
>>>> request object wrapper to make it closer. As for the other stuff, that
>>>> may or may not affect many people. The particular area I have an issue
>>>> with in that respect is the really bad way mod_python.publisher deals
>>>> with trailing slashes. So, porting work would definitely be required.
>>>>
>>>> So, is there any interest in a mod_python.publisher like package to
>>>> act as a easy migration path away from mod_python?
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mod_python mailing list
>>>> Mod_python at modpython.org
>>>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python
>>>
>>>
>
>