Re: A Python Web Application Package and Format

11.04.2011 22:48, Alice Bevan–McGregor kirjoitti:
> On 2011-04-11 00:53:02 -0700, Eric Larson said:
>
>> Hi,
>> On Apr 10, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Alice Bevan–McGregor wrote:
>>
>>> However, the package format I describe in that gist does include the 
>>> source for the dependencies as "snapshotted" during bundling.  If 
>>> your application is working in development, after snapshotting it 
>>> /will/ work on sandbox or production deployments.
>>
>> I wanted to chime in on this one aspect b/c I think the concept is 
>> somewhat flawed. If your application is working in development and 
>> "snapshot" the dependencies that is no guarantee that things will 
>> work in production. The only way to say that snapshot or bundle is 
>> guaranteed to work is if you snapshot the entire system and make it 
>> available as a production system.
>
> `pwaf bundle` bundles the source tarballs, effectively, of your 
> application and dependencies into a single file.  Not unlike a certain 
> feature of pip.
>
> And… wait, am I the only one who uses built-from-snapshot virtual 
> servers for sandbox and production deployment?  I can't be the only 
> one who likes things to work as expected.
>
>> Using a real world example, say you develop your application on OS X 
>> and you deploy on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS. Right away you are dealing with 
>> two different operating systems with entirely different system calls. 
>> If you use something like lxml and simplejson, you have no choice but 
>> to repackage or install from source on the production server.
>
> Installing from source is what I was suggesting.  Also, Ubuntu on a 
> server?  All your `linux single` (root) are belong to me.  ;^P
I use Ubuntu on all my servers, and "linux single" does not work with 
it, I can tell you ;P
>
>> While it is fair to say that generally you could avoid packages that 
>> don't use C, both lxml and simplejson are rather obvious choices for 
>> web development.
>
> Except that json is built-in in 2.6 (admittedly with fewer features, 
> but I've never needed the extras) and there are alternate xml parsers, 
> too.
>
>> It sounds like Ian doesn't want to have any build steps which I think 
>> is a bad mantra. A build step lets you prepare things for deployment. 
>> A deployment package is different than a development package and 
>> mixing the two by forcing builds on the server or seems like asking 
>> for trouble.
>
> I'm having difficulty following this statement: build steps good, 
> building on server bad?  So I take it you know the exact target 
> architecture and have cross-compilers installed in your development 
> environment?  That's not practical (or simple) at all!
>
>> I'm not saying this is what you (Alice) are suggesting, but rather 
>> pointing out that as a model, depending on virtualenv + pip's 
>> bundling capabilities seems slightly flawed.
>
> Virtualenv (or something utilizing a similar Python path 'chrooting' 
> capability) and pip using the extracted "deps" as the source for 
> "offline" installation actually seems quite reasonable to me.  The 
> benefit of a known set of working packages (i.e. specific version 
> numbers, tested in development) and the ability to compile C 
> extensions in-place.  (Because sure as hell you can't reliably compile 
> them before-hand if they have any form of system library dependency!)
>
>> I think it should offer hooks for running tests, learning basic 
>> status and allow simple configuration for typical sysadmin needs 
>> (logging via syslog, process management, nagios checks, etc.). 
>> Instead of focusing on what format that should take in terms of 
>> packages, it seems more effective to spend time defining a standard 
>> means of managing WSGI apps and piggyback or plain old copy some 
>> format like RPMs or dpkg.
>
> RPMs are terrible, dpkg is terrible.  Binary package distribution, in 
> general, is terrible.  I got the distinct impression at PyCon that 
> binary distributable .eggs were thought of as terrible and should be 
> phased out.
>
> Also, nobody so far seems to have noticed the centralized logging 
> management or deamon management lines from my notes.
>
>> Just my .02. Again, I haven't offered code, so feel free to ignore 
>> me. But I do hope that if there are others that suspect this model of 
>> putting source on the server is a problem pipe up. If I were to add a 
>> requirement it would be that Python web applications help system 
>> administrators become more effective. That means finding consistent 
>> ways of deploying apps that plays well with other languages / 
>> platforms. After all, keeping a C compiler on a public server is 
>> rarely a good idea.
>
> If you could demonstrate a fool-proof way to install packages with 
> system library dependencies using cross-compilation from a remote 
> machine, I'm all ears.  ;)
>
>     — Alice.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web-SIG mailing list
> [email protected]
> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
> Unsubscribe: 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/alex.gronholm%40nextday.fi

_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org