Thanks to everybody. I believe I am understanding things better. I have looked at the links that have been provided, although I have seen most of them in the past month or so that I've been looking into this stuff. I do agree with most of the things Armin stated in that NIH post. I agree with everybody in this thread so far. If I wanted to write an application, I would use an existing framework and wait for it to be ported to 3.x. However, I do not have the need to write a web application at this time, and creating blogs or other applications I do not need for fun is getting old.
My reasoning for working on my own instead of following the 'NIH' concept or contributing to an existing framework is because I have experimented with many existing frameworks and I have figured out what I like/dislike, and have envisioned my own design that I feel would work potentially better for others, or at least newcomers. Things like this are fun for me, and I do not mind the challenge. I don't want to pollute the web with (sigh) 'another framework', but it would be fun for me to write it and get some feedback. I would love for people like you, Armin, and others who take a look at the various frameworks that pop up seemingly every day, to look at my (hypothetical) framework and just rip it apart with (constructive) criticism. That is just the way I do things, whether the community agrees with it or not. The reason I was asking about Python 3 on the web was just because I like some of the changes that have been made, and would like to use it for my framework. That is when I realized that I was absolutely clueless about the details of how Python, or any language, works on the web. Graham, regarding number 3 in your list of ways to host WSGI: I haven't really looked into mod_wsgi at all, but basically it sounds like the web server would be running this embedded module. That module would then serve the function of both FCGI and the 'WSGI Server' in my diagram? That actually sounds really neat. Unfortunately I missed this because I've been hooked on lighttpd, as the minimalist I am. Here are the things I am still confused with: 1) Why do I not want to consider running Python on the web with FCGI, without WSGI? You said 'no' straight up, no questions asked. I would imagine that there is a good reason of course, as you've been in this field for a long time. I just feel more comfortable understanding why. >From my understanding, the only real purpose of WSGI is to remain independent of FCGI/SCGI/CGI/AJP (whatever that is) and the web server it is run on. However, 99.9% of the discussion I see with Python on the web is around FCGI. So for example, lets say everybody used FCGI. All that would be left to deal with is web server independence. Now this is what I don't get, I thought that FCGI itself was supposed to be the protocol that deals with web server independence. Maybe I just need to re-read entire WSGI specification to understand, along with all the details of FCGI. There are just so many details regarding web servers, FCGI, and WSGI that it is hard to absorb it all and see how it works together. That is why I tried to create the diagram, but it doesn't provide enough details. And those are the details I am missing. I've been trying to find a simple diagram or explaination of the process a request takes to make a response, from HTTP all the way up to the application, to the the user. 2) In the development stack, the 'WSGI Server' seems to take on the role of the web server (dealing with HTTP specification), skips FCGI, and deals with the WSGI specification. Then, the 'WSGI Server' in the production stack (eg. Flup, CherryPy, etc) only deals with FCGI and WSGI specification, because the HTTP is already taken care of by the web server? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list