On 03/29/2015 09:30 PM, Michael Torrie wrote: > What does this have to do with Python itself? I'm not completely sure, > but maybe it's about the Python community. What's the way forward? I > have no idea. At the very least John is frustrated by the community's > lack of apparent interest in fixing problems in the greater python > ecosystem when it comes to Python 3.
I think one could easily draw far too broad a conclusion from John's report here. The title of the thread says "lack of support for fcgi/wsgi", but AFAICT the content of the report, and the thread, is entirely about FCGI. In my experience, WSGI under Python 3 works very well these days, and all of the popular WSGI servers (gunicorn, mod_wsgi, uwsgi, waitress, ...) run just fine under Python 3. I've deployed several Django applications into production on Python 3 (using WSGI) with no issues. FastCGI is a different story. I do some Django support on #django and on django-users, and I see very few people deploying with FastCGI anymore; almost everyone uses WSGI (and when we see someone using FastCGI, we encourage them to switch to WSGI). In fact, the FastCGI support in Django itself is deprecated and will be removed in Django 1.9. So I am not at all surprised to hear that the Python FastCGI libraries are relatively poorly maintained. And it is true and unsurprising that when a particular library is no longer maintained, it will probably be in better shape on Python 2 than on Python 3, because Python 2 is older. So when it comes to "the community's interest in fixing problems" or John's assertion that "nobody uses this stuff," in both cases I think it's far more about FastCGI vs WSGI than it's about Python 2 vs 3. Carl
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
