Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
* Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have examples of SSI tag handlers that you might implement this way if such a feature were available? I ask as it all good to speculate on such a feature, but like this generic #python tag, would it in itself be used either? Actually, I'd hardly use the the #python tag by itself, but specific functions, provided by my application as needed (like the SSI templates are provided by my application but designed by someone else!). All you thus get by having an explicit registered tag is that that Python is used can be hidden and a user would be none the wiser. Exactly that's the point. Separation of concerns - I'm not a friend of a raw programming language in a template. Therefore - if you really want to pass httpd features to mod_python, it would be nice to consider this one :) nd
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
Not seeing any negatives, I am going to go ahead and commit the SSI
stuff. Comments that this is just another way to skin a cat are true,
even if a small cat. I guess the reason for doing it is to fill out
those basic features that can be filled out by using just what Apache
provides.
Anyway, I'll try and get around to writing one of my mini articles
about the feature and also use some of that for inclusion into the
mod_python documentation itself. Maybe from writing a mini article
it might become more apparent how its simplicity can be just as useful
as any other approach for getting small tasks down quickly.
Graham
On 11/03/2006, at 1:43 AM, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I don't understand this enough to have an opinion on it, seems like
another way to skin a cat, but to really form an opinion would require
some thinking on my part at least (may be I'm getting thick with age).
I think it'd be great if those who send in +1's (or -1's) would
explain why they think this is good, and even if it's not so useful,
then is it worth being supported and maintained in the future.
Grisha
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
+1
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
I have had patches for adding server side include support into
mod_python ready for a while now. See:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-104
In short, it would add the ability to add Python code into files
being served up through the INCLUDES output filter. More
commonly this is known as server side include (SSI). For example:
!--#python exec= from mod_python import apache import cgi import
sys parts = apache.import_module('parts') def _escape(object):
return cgi.escape(str(object)) -- html body pre
!--#python eval=_escape(str(globals().keys()))-- !--#python
eval=_escape(str(locals().keys()))-- !--#python exec= print
filter for key in filter.req.subprocess_env: print filter,
_escape((key, filter.req.subprocess_env[key])) -- !--#python
eval=parts.content()-- /pre /body /html One could say
that there is an overlap between this and the
mod_python.psp handler, but the SSI feature is a builtin feature of
Apache and it make sense to support it. Using SSI, if one was mad
enough, you could even have Python and Perl code appearing in the one
file.
Anyway, the point of this email is to get a decision on whether this
major new feature should or should not be added into mod_python.
Core developer votes obviously matter the most, but others are more
than welcome to voice an opinion.
So, is it a Yes or a No?
Graham
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
* Graham Dumpleton wrote: Not seeing any negatives, I am going to go ahead and commit the SSI stuff. Comments that this is just another way to skin a cat are true, even if a small cat. I guess the reason for doing it is to fill out those basic features that can be filled out by using just what Apache provides. If that's a point, you know, what would be really great in this case? To be able to register own SSI handlers using mod_python instead of (or in addition to) this generic #python thingy, which nobody really seems to be able to classify/justify. Like registering a name and a callback function with a fixed signature. What do you think? nd -- die (eval q-qq:Just Another Perl Hacker :-) # André Malo, http://www.perlig.de/ #
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
On 12/03/2006, at 8:25 PM, André Malo wrote: * Graham Dumpleton wrote: Not seeing any negatives, I am going to go ahead and commit the SSI stuff. Comments that this is just another way to skin a cat are true, even if a small cat. I guess the reason for doing it is to fill out those basic features that can be filled out by using just what Apache provides. If that's a point, you know, what would be really great in this case? To be able to register own SSI handlers using mod_python instead of (or in addition to) this generic #python thingy, which nobody really seems to be able to classify/justify. Like registering a name and a callback function with a fixed signature. What do you think? I did think about it but deferred the idea in preference to at least getting some basic support for use of Python code with SSI in place. In other words, to take this initial step and then see whether people even consider using server side includes a viable way of doing stuff. These days there is so much focus on full blown frameworks that I am not sure that SSI even gets used much. I could well be wrong on that point. Do you have examples of SSI tag handlers that you might implement this way if such a feature were available? I ask as it all good to speculate on such a feature, but like this generic #python tag, would it in itself be used either? Graham
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
On 12/03/2006, at 9:04 PM, Graham Dumpleton wrote: On 12/03/2006, at 8:25 PM, André Malo wrote: * Graham Dumpleton wrote: Not seeing any negatives, I am going to go ahead and commit the SSI stuff. Comments that this is just another way to skin a cat are true, even if a small cat. I guess the reason for doing it is to fill out those basic features that can be filled out by using just what Apache provides. If that's a point, you know, what would be really great in this case? To be able to register own SSI handlers using mod_python instead of (or in addition to) this generic #python thingy, which nobody really seems to be able to classify/justify. Like registering a name and a callback function with a fixed signature. What do you think? I did think about it but deferred the idea in preference to at least getting some basic support for use of Python code with SSI in place. In other words, to take this initial step and then see whether people even consider using server side includes a viable way of doing stuff. These days there is so much focus on full blown frameworks that I am not sure that SSI even gets used much. I could well be wrong on that point. Do you have examples of SSI tag handlers that you might implement this way if such a feature were available? I ask as it all good to speculate on such a feature, but like this generic #python tag, would it in itself be used either? BTW, I should point out that one of the reasons for not rushing straight into allowing tag handler registration is that the same can be achieved with what is provided, albeit just more verbose and still exposing the fact that Python is used. All you need to do is put your common code that the tag handler would do in a Python function, import that module and call it. That is, you don't have to enumerate the complete code within the actual file being processed by mod_includes. The function can either query filter.req.subprocess_env for input parameters, or the point in the file where it is called can extract out the required values and pass them as explicit arguments to the function being called. All you thus get by having an explicit registered tag is that that Python is used can be hidden and a user would be none the wiser. Graham
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
+1
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
I have had patches for adding server side include support into
mod_python ready for a while now. See:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-104
In short, it would add the ability to add Python code into files
being served up through the INCLUDES output filter. More
commonly this is known as server side include (SSI). For example:
!--#python exec=
from mod_python import apache
import cgi
import sys
parts = apache.import_module('parts')
def _escape(object):
return cgi.escape(str(object))
--
html
body
pre
!--#python eval=_escape(str(globals().keys()))--
!--#python eval=_escape(str(locals().keys()))--
!--#python exec=
print filter
for key in filter.req.subprocess_env:
print filter, _escape((key, filter.req.subprocess_env[key]))
--
!--#python eval=parts.content()--
/pre
/body
/html
One could say that there is an overlap between this and the
mod_python.psp handler, but the SSI feature is a builtin feature of
Apache and it make sense to support it. Using SSI, if one was mad
enough, you could even have Python and Perl code appearing in the one
file.
Anyway, the point of this email is to get a decision on whether this
major new feature should or should not be added into mod_python.
Core developer votes obviously matter the most, but others are more
than welcome to voice an opinion.
So, is it a Yes or a No?
Graham
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
I don't understand this enough to have an opinion on it, seems like
another way to skin a cat, but to really form an opinion would require
some thinking on my part at least (may be I'm getting thick with age).
I think it'd be great if those who send in +1's (or -1's) would explain
why they think this is good, and even if it's not so useful, then is it
worth being supported and maintained in the future.
Grisha
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
+1
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
I have had patches for adding server side include support into
mod_python ready for a while now. See:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-104
In short, it would add the ability to add Python code into files
being served up through the INCLUDES output filter. More
commonly this is known as server side include (SSI). For example:
!--#python exec= from mod_python import apache import cgi import sys
parts = apache.import_module('parts') def _escape(object): return
cgi.escape(str(object)) -- html body pre !--#python
eval=_escape(str(globals().keys()))-- !--#python
eval=_escape(str(locals().keys()))-- !--#python exec= print filter
for key in filter.req.subprocess_env: print filter, _escape((key,
filter.req.subprocess_env[key])) -- !--#python
eval=parts.content()-- /pre /body /html
One could say that there is an overlap between this and the
mod_python.psp handler, but the SSI feature is a builtin feature of
Apache and it make sense to support it. Using SSI, if one was mad
enough, you could even have Python and Perl code appearing in the one
file.
Anyway, the point of this email is to get a decision on whether this
major new feature should or should not be added into mod_python.
Core developer votes obviously matter the most, but others are more
than welcome to voice an opinion.
So, is it a Yes or a No?
Graham
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
+1 (although I'm indifferent about into which release it goes) -- Deron Meranda
Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote: I don't understand this enough to have an opinion on it, seems like another way to skin a cat, Yes, but perhaps just for small cats. ;) Quoting from http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/howto/ssi.html SSI is certainly not a replacement for CGI, or other technologies used for generating dynamic web pages. But it is a great way to add small amounts of dynamic content to pages, without doing a lot of extra work. Jim
