On 12/17/2015 11:50 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote: > - I thought SCRIPT_NAME was basically unused by anyone these days, but > hey, happy to be proved wrong. Do we have any usage numbers on it to > know if we'd need it for a new standalone server to implement? It's > really not hard to add it into the request format, just thought it was > one of those CGI remnants we might finally be able to kill.
I'll admit to not being an expert on this use case at all, since I don't generally do it, but AFAIK SCRIPT_NAME remains pretty key for transparently deploying a Django site at non-root URL paths. If you grep for SCRIPT_NAME in Django, you'll see that Django itself pays attention to it (in order to support this use case) in the core WSGIHandler and in the url reverser. Although it may be that passing SCRIPT_NAME in META to user view code isn't actually critical to continuing to support non-root deploys. Needs exploration. Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/56730C8B.1050309%40oddbird.net. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
