On Jan 1, 9:12 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote: > >>http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/12/five-features-perl-5-needs-now.html > > >> and he mentions a neat-looking project called ``mod_perlite``. It > >> sounds like it will be very handy. Anyone working on a > >> ``mod_pylite``? Has it been done before, maybe under a different > >> name? > > It's kind of hard to tell. There's very little description of how > mod_perlite would be different than mod_perl other than it would be more > lightweight, presumably as mod_php somehow is. That hardly seems like a > well-defined requirement document. > > Does mod_wsgi fit the bill?http://www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl/w/p/mod_wsgi/ >
I'm not sure if it fits the bill or not. The bill is two-fold: 1. The Apache module should present little risk to the admin who installs it. That is, it should not expose Apache's innards. 2. The Apache module should keep a Python instance running; run, for example, ``foo.py`` when a user accesses (for example) ``http:// www.example.com/path/to/foo.py?baz=88``; pass baz=88 to foo.py in the usual way; and return whatever html that script spits out. I'm not familiar with php or ``mod_php``, but I suspect that setup does something very similar to what's described above. This might explain why it's so blasted easy to deploy php scripts and create small and simple sites (and even not-so-small/simple sites) with it. Does mod_wsgi fit that bill? I don't know. The docs seem to be at http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/w/list . Many of those are named "ChangesInVersionXXXX". I don't see any that named anything like "Introduction" or "BasicUsage" or "SimpleUsageLikeCGI" or even "Tutorial". So, my guess is that ``mod_wsgi`` doesn't fit the bill. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
