Re: A more useful command-line wsgiref.simple_server?

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Graham Dumpleton <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Now when doing mod_wsgi, a similar method of loading each file
>
separately with a __name__ based on file system path was used to
> ensure each was distinct when same file name used in different
> directories.
>

Why give them a __name__ at all?  Aren't they scripts, rather than modules?
 ISTM that not having a __name__ would also let things like pickles fail
faster.  That is, code that expected a module rather than a script would
break right away.


FWIW, in the past when pushing the idea of a WSGI script file being
> the lowest common denominator, part of the reason I found I couldn't
> get it accepted is that some people simply didn't understand how in
> Python to load an arbitrary file by path name and construct a module
> for it in memory, with magic __name__. They seemed to think that the
> only way to import a code file was for it to have a .py extension and
> for the directory to be in sys.path. So, due to ignorance of the
> solution as to how to do it meant I got a push back from some people.
>

Who were you trying to get acceptance from?  Web-SIG or Python-Dev?
 Framework devs or end-users?  Is  there a PEP?

If implementation is a problem for people, could we just include a wsgiref
utility for it?

_______________________________________________
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