Re: Quixote, WSGI, next-gen hypishness, etc

David Binger wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:48 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> 
>> Which is -- why aren't you guys embracing WSGI more?
> 
> 
> Personally, I haven't really seen how using WSGI would help
> in the applications we run here.  Is there something
> WSCGI offers, that I should want, that I don't already
> have by using SCGI?  If there is now, or in the future,
> couldn't this be provided by a WSCGI-to-SCGI bridge?

WSGI is an in-process protocol, SCGI is really only an interprocess 
protocol.  So with WSGI you can compose applications inside a single 
process, wrap applications (e.g., impose a transaction boundary or catch 
exceptions), run tests in a simulated environment, or even do the URL 
traversal as a series of WSGI requests.

I don't see WSGI and SCGI as very closely related, so it's hard for me 
to really describe any particular differences.  They are different 
things.  As far as I know, nobody uses SCGI for much more than hooking 
an actual web server (that speaks HTTP) up to an application that lives 
in a separate process.  At one level of indirection WSGI lets you do 
that to (since you can hook your WSGI app up to something that then 
talks to or is an HTTP server), but the abstraction is much more useful 
than just that.

-- 
Ian Bicking  /  [email protected]  /  http://blog.ianbicking.org