Fredrik Lundh wrote: > Christoph Haas wrote: > >>> well, note, for that they have named it Ruby-On-Rails, so its still the >>> language - leveraged. While it is Zope/Django/Ego-on-Python ... ? >> If by that you mean that neither Zope nor Django are exactly pythonic I >> think I concur. > > Django is highly Pythonic (it's pure Python plus templates, and has the same > "pencil-like qualities" as Python itself). Zope 3 is highly Pythonic too, > but a > rather more advanced form of Python. but they're both application servers, > not CGI scripting environments.
pythonic yes, but ..-on-python >>> First need of course: an update of that cgi "module". >> Oh, yeah. I just joined the Web SIG and found out that WSGI seems the way >> to go. At a first look it seems horrible if you just want to provide a CGI >> module. > > WSGI is a CGI replacement, not a CGI implementation. Which is a good thing, > because what really matters, if you think about what a web server is doing, > is the > HTTP protocol, not an old and not always practical httpd extension standard. > WSGI simply provides plumbing for working very close to the HTTP level. > > (you can of course create a WSGI-compatible adapter for CGI in no time at > all, but that's not really the point of WSGI). its a low level tech basis. Regarding the discussion here, its also the enabler for the confusion :-) >> Somehow I sadly feel I would just add another incomplete framework to that >> pile. > > as they say, if you don't understand history, you're bound to repeat it ;-) we are currently bound to repeat 30+ histories. no wonder - nobody will ever understand it and go to Rails & Co. >> I'm especially unsure whether it's good or bad to create another "I'm sick >> of the standard library"-style module. I've just become a bit less >> confident to actually contribute something useful there. Overwhelming. > > Building a "like cgi.py, but with more support for the kind of things people > actually > need" library would be an excellent idea. It's not clear from your posts > that you > "get" what things like Django and Zope do, and how that's different from "CGI > programming", but if you have a deep understanding of the latter, I'm sure you > could come up with a nice "cgi2.py" library with relatively little effort. > Get to > work! think both are missing standard modules: cgi2 and a comfortable OO-dispatcher/server with clear tutorials. And to have them in front on the Python display window. Robert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list