Re: The mod_python project soon to be officially dead.

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 usin=
g 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is the reason I made a MP2WSGI "framework"
>> Which is in fact a MP code compatible MP adapter for MOD_WSGI
>>=20
>> I run it in production but:
>>=20
>> I have not yet got the util and PSP modules to work since there are so=
me technical issues I have not found the time to solve.
>> This could very well be a solution for many MOD_PYTHON users.
>>=20
>> (I stil need help on the parse_qs and parse_qsl functions for util to =
work)
>=20
> The mod_python source code says that are C implementations of:
>=20
>  cgi.parse_qs
>  cgi.parse_qsl
>=20
> Have how they work deviated over time?
>=20
> Graham
>=20
>> I plan on integrating PSP too, contributors are welcome
>>=20
>> see  http://www.bitbucket.org/mmoeling/mp2mwsgi
>>=20
>> Martijn
>>=20
>> On May 28, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>=20
>>> 2010/5/28 Rapha=EBl B. <[email protected]>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>=20
>>>> Is it possible to have something like psp with mod_wsgi ?
>>>> 'cause I have programmed some pages with psp (i don't really like pu=
blisher
>>>> ..) and I would like to continue using it.
>>>>=20
>>>> Is it as simple as for mod_python to use sessions ?
>>>>=20
>>>> It's really difficult to change the way we make things ...
>>>=20
>>> PSP is mostly a standalone module in mod_python. There are
>>> dependencies on the mod_python request object, forms and sessions. On=
e
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> Graham
>>>=20
>>>> 2010/5/28 Graham Dumpleton <[email protected]>
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On 28 May 2010 09:53, Jason Caldwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Graham --
>>>>>> I would like to see mod_python continue on.  Supporting Py3.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Well, find like minded people and take on development and support o=
f
>>>>> mod_python yourself. That is going to be the only solution.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Knowing all the problems with how to deal with all the Unicode/byte=
s
>>>>> issues in Python 3.X it is going even be a major task working out w=
hat
>>>>> the interfaces should look like and where bytes versus Unicode shou=
ld
>>>>> be used. The argument about this for WSGI has been going on for alm=
ost
>>>>> 2 years now I think and still now final resolution and WSGI is a lo=
t
>>>>> smaller interface than mod_python.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> I find the frameworks annoying and really love the simplicity and
>>>>>> lightness of mod_python.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Did you look at Werkzeug and Flask as I mentioned in the blog. Thes=
e
>>>>> are not heavy weight frameworks. Flask is specifically what is call=
ed
>>>>> 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. D=
o
>>>>> you preserve these bad design issues or fix them?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Graham
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On May 27, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> I have warned about this before on the list, but it is getting cl=
oser
>>>>>>> now.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> If you are a user of mod_python, read my blog post about the topi=
c at:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>  http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2010/05/modpython-project-soon-to-be-of=
ficially.html
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Mod_python mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Mod_python mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mod_python mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://mailman.modpython.org/mailman/listinfo/mod_python
>>=20
>>=20