Re: twisted

On 03/30/05 09:49, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Steven Armstrong wrote:
> 
>>> And just between us, I think I would be okay with forcing people to
>>> install WSGI, or installing it for them, but that might just be 
>>> because
>>> I'm enamored of it now, and think that it's critical to the future of
>>> Python on the web.
>>>
>>
>> Why? If the user doesn't need/want the WSGI stuff he shouldn't be 
>> forced
>> to use it. After all it's another layer of code that can contain errors
>> and consumes CPU, memory and time.
> 
> A WSGI implementation overhead is *a function*.  An implementation on 
> top of CGI spans a page, and is included in the PEP.  Cry me a river on 
> this one, I'd love to eat a couple hundred bytes and a few 
> *micro*seconds in exchange for throwing away a bunch of code.
> 

I agree that performance is not the most relevant part here.
My point is: If it's not required to get the job done, leave it out.
Anyway, I don't care enough to argue about this. If anybody wants
Pyblosxom to *depend* on the wsgiref library that's fine with me.

>> I agree that WSGI is important for Python web programming.
>> Altough for me it doesn't really go far enough. I'ld prefer something
>> like the Java Servlet spec, that is, a less bloated and pythonized
>> variant. There's still so meny things missing in WSGI, like session
>> handling and all.
>>
>> This is is one section where Pythons batteries are missing.
> 
> So in one paragraph you're saying it should do less (specifically, 
> nothing), but then you want it to do more?  Beyond that, you want it to 
> do more in a way that doesn't really have any relevance to pyblosxom at 
> all?  That doesn't really make sense.  Sessions have real fundamental 
> problems and adoption of them forces you into making very specific 
> decisions about how the to support them is designed and how 
> applications using them are to be deployed. WSGI is far lower level 
> than that, it defines the I/O boundary and nothing else.  This is a
> good thing.
>

Who said my comments on sessions are related to pyblosxom?
Yes, sessions are a non-trivial thing to design and handle. And still, a
great big percentage of the webapps being developed use them.
That's why I think its stupid that every framework out there provides
its own implementation, where 90% of the code and API are identical.
It should be written once, and then its there for those who wish to use it.

Comming from the Java world I just sometimes miss the "it's all there"
or "plug and play/pray" feeling when writing webapps in python.

cheers
Steven


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click