|
Martijn Moeling
martijn at xs4us.nu
Sat Jun 12 10:01:45 EDT 2010
So to get things started on util.py you say that I can use the cgi module for those functions? I found them in the cgi module before but dcumentation on these functions in MP is sparse/non existant I did not dare to start using them, I'll have a look at the cgi versions to see if things on util.py in MP2WSGI can be speeded up with that. I'm not familiar with using C for python extentions but might end up using the MP code "if" possible but I see some difficulties in doing so. Martijn On Jun 9, 2010, at 6:19 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > On 8 June 2010 23:07, Martijn Moeling <martijn at xs4us.nu> wrote: >> This is the reason I made a MP2WSGI "framework" >> Which is in fact a MP code compatible MP adapter for MOD_WSGI >> >> I run it in production but: >> >> I have not yet got the util and PSP modules to work since there are some technical issues I have not found the time to solve. >> This could very well be a solution for many MOD_PYTHON users. >> >> (I stil need help on the parse_qs and parse_qsl functions for util to work) > > The mod_python source code says that are C implementations of: > > cgi.parse_qs > cgi.parse_qsl > > Have how they work deviated over time? > > Graham > >> I plan on integrating PSP too, contributors are welcome >> >> see http://www.bitbucket.org/mmoeling/mp2mwsgi >> >> Martijn >> >> On May 28, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> >>> 2010/5/28 Raphaël B. <nashii at gmail.com>: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is it possible to have something like psp with mod_wsgi ? >>>> 'cause I have programmed some pages with psp (i don't really like publisher >>>> ..) and I would like to continue using it. >>>> >>>> Is it as simple as for mod_python to use sessions ? >>>> >>>> It's really difficult to change the way we make things ... >>> >>> PSP is mostly a standalone module in mod_python. There are >>> dependencies on the mod_python request object, forms and sessions. One >>> could though certainly port the PSP templating aspect to work as part >>> of a WSGI mini framework of some sort, but any interaction with the >>> request object, forms and sessions would likely need to change to >>> match what the mini framework provides. >>> >>> Graham >>> >>>> 2010/5/28 Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumpleton at gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> On 28 May 2010 09:53, Jason Caldwell <jscnet99 at me.com> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Graham -- >>>>>> I would like to see mod_python continue on. Supporting Py3. >>>>> >>>>> Well, find like minded people and take on development and support of >>>>> mod_python yourself. That is going to be the only solution. >>>>> >>>>> Knowing all the problems with how to deal with all the Unicode/bytes >>>>> issues in Python 3.X it is going even be a major task working out what >>>>> the interfaces should look like and where bytes versus Unicode should >>>>> be used. The argument about this for WSGI has been going on for almost >>>>> 2 years now I think and still now final resolution and WSGI is a lot >>>>> smaller interface than mod_python. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there are a significant number of bugs in mod_python and >>>>> seriously they would need to be addressed before even trying to go to >>>>> Python 3.X. All up it is going to need some serious commitment and >>>>> right now there is no one who who has said they are prepared to do >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>>>> I find the frameworks annoying and really love the simplicity and >>>>>> lightness of mod_python. >>>>> >>>>> Did you look at Werkzeug and Flask as I mentioned in the blog. These >>>>> are not heavy weight frameworks. Flask is specifically what is called >>>>> a micro framework. Even if you didn't like Flask, it wouldn't take >>>>> much effort to use Werkzeug to create an alternate micro framework >>>>> that has usage pattern not too dissimilar to mod_python publisher. But >>>>> one has to question whether that is a good idea either given the >>>>> various design issues in publisher around multiple URLs being able to >>>>> be used to map to a single resource and the problems that causes. Do >>>>> you preserve these bad design issues or fix them? >>>>> >>>>> Graham >>>>> >>>>>> On May 27, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have warned about this before on the list, but it is getting closer >>>>>>> now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are a user of mod_python, read my blog post about the topic at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2010/05/modpython-project-soon-to-be-officially.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Graham >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Mod_python mailing list >>>>>>> Mod_python at modpython.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Mod_python mailing list >>>>> Mod_python at modpython.org >>>>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mod_python mailing list >>> Mod_python at modpython.org >>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python >> >>
|