Re: Python on the Web
John Nagle a écrit :
(snip)
MySQLdb is available only up to Python 2.5.
Huh ???
Python 2.6.2 (release26-maint, Apr 19 2009, 01:56:41)
[GCC 4.3.3] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import MySQLdb
/var/lib/python-support/python2.6/MySQLdb/__init__.py:34:
DeprecationWarning: the sets module is deprecated
from sets import ImmutableSet
>>> cnx = MySQLdb.connect(db='cress', user='cress', passwd='cress')
>>> cursor = cnx.cursor()
>>> cursor.execute("SELECT id_article, titre FROM spip_articles")
28L
>>> for row in cursor:
... print row
...
(1L, '01. Sensibilisation')
(2L, '02. Gestation')
(3L, '03. Lancement')
(4L, '04. D\xe9veloppement')
(5L, '01. Sensibilisation')
(6L, '02. Gestation')
(7L, '03. Lancement')
(8L, '04. D\xe9veloppement')
(9L, '01. Sensibilisation')
(10L, '02. Gestation')
(11L, '03. Lancement')
(12L, '04. D\xe9veloppement')
(13L, 'Nouvel article')
(14L, 'Nouvel article')
(15L, '01. Les principes fondateurs d\x92une coop\xe9rative')
(16L, '02. C\x92est quoi une COOPERATIVE ?')
(17L, '10. Les principes fondamentaux de l\x92Economie sociale et
solidaire')
(18L, '20. Les familles de l\x92Economie sociale et solidaire ')
(19L, 'Article 1')
(20L, 'Article 2')
(21L, 'Article 3')
(22L, 'Article 4')
(23L, 'Article 5')
(24L, 'Lancement du nouveau site de la CRESS')
(25L, 'Mise \xe0 jour des Formations')
(26L, "La CRESS au Salon de l'Emploi")
(27L, '01. Pr\xe9sentation')
(28L, '20. Les formations universitaires BAC +3')
>>> cursor.close()
>>> cnx.close()
>>>
Seems to work just fine here...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Ed Singleton a écrit : On Aug 26, 4:17 am, alex23 wrote: Frameworks created for the sake of creating a framework, as opposed to those written to meet a defined need, tend to be the worst examples of masturbatory coding. Indeed, but masturbation is perfectly healthy and acceptable, and we all do it every now and then. It is however, much like the framework in question, best kept private and not made public. +1 QOTW !-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
On Aug 26, 4:17 am, alex23 wrote: > Frameworks created for the sake of creating a framework, as opposed to > those written to meet a defined need, tend to be the worst examples of > masturbatory coding. Indeed, but masturbation is perfectly healthy and acceptable, and we all do it every now and then. It is however, much like the framework in question, best kept private and not made public. Ed -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
John Nagle a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> If you're only writing your framework for learning purposes, you could >> as well go with Python 3, and implement everything from the ground up >> (not a trivial task FWIW). > >Python 3 isn't ready for prime time on web servers. Too many major > modules, > haven't been ported yet. Which ones (sorry, still using 2.5 at work so I didn't bother that much with 2.6 so far) ? > MySQLdb is available only up to Python 2.5. So the basics > for web work aren't > ready yet. I wouldn't label MySQLdb as "a basic for web work" - I mean, something you just can't do without !-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: If you're only writing your framework for learning purposes, you could as well go with Python 3, and implement everything from the ground up (not a trivial task FWIW). Python 3 isn't ready for prime time on web servers. Too many major modules, haven't been ported yet. Twisted and Django are now available up to Python 2.6; MySQLdb is available only up to Python 2.5. So the basics for web work aren't ready yet. Python 2.5 is more or less the "stable" version of Python for production use at the moment. 2.6 is a transition version to 3.0. John Nagle -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
A few additional comments on top of what others have said.
On Aug 26, 11:09 am, Phil wrote:
As I've read elsewhere, "These days, FastCGI is never used directly.
Actually, FCGI works quite well. Sitetruth's AdRater
(http://www.sitetruth.com/downloads/adrater.html) uses
FCGI and Python on the server.
FCGI is basically CGI with process reusability. Each
app gets its own process in its own address space with its
own global interpreter lock. mod_fcgi in Apache keeps a
supply of such processes around, launching additional ones if there's
heavy request traffic and shutting down existing ones when there
isn't. Each process handles one transaction after another,
so, unlike CGI, you're not spending all your time loading Python
and its modules.
Here's the main loop of a real FCGI application. This uses a small
WSGI library on the Python side. No "framework" is involved.
#!/usr/local/bin/python
...
from fcgi import WSGIServer
import MySQLdb
db = None # database connection, held open for life of FCGI
#
# The application
#
def QuickSitetruthQuery(environ, start_response):
global db # static global - active database handle
try:
if db : # if previously attached
try :
db.ping() # test whether connection is still up
# handle loss of database connection
except MySQLdb.OperationalError, message:
db = None # we lost database connection
if db is None : # if no valid database handle
db = miscutils.dbattach(kdbfile)# connect to database
status = '200 OK' # normal status
headers = [('Content-type','text/xml'), ('charset','utf-8')]
reqlist = cgi.parse_qsl(environ['QUERY_STRING'])# Parse params
priority = 1# priority of request
sourceip = environ['REMOTE_ADDR'] # get IP address of client
urls = [] # list of URLs to check
for item in reqlist : # for all items
(key, value) = item # extract item
if key.lower() == 'url' : # want all "url" items
urls.append(value)
elif key.lower() == 'priority' :# if priority
priority = int(value) # get priority value
# Make request; no waiting, no details
outstr = InfoDisplay.getratingXMLquick(db, kdbfile, urls,
priority, sourceip) # get the rating XML, never wait
start_response(status, headers) # compose result
s = kprefixxml + outstr + ksuffixxml# construct output XML
return [s.encode('utf8')] # encode as UTF8
except Exception, message: # if trouble, report to user
# Error handling
status = "500 Internal Error on Server"
response_headers = [("Content-type","text/html")]
start_response(status, response_headers)
s = "Internal error - request not processed.\n\n"
+ traceback.format_exc()
s = s.replace("\n","")# convert to HTML
return [s]
#
# Main FCGI program
#
WSGIServer(QuickSitetruthQuery).run()
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Phil a écrit : When I gave that arbitrary percentage, I was basing it off of the information I had seen with regards to launching applications built with existing frameworks using lighttpd. I do realize I was missing a lot of information by looking up something that specific. Indeed !-) I also understand that there are enough frameworks. That still won't change my mind. I do not want to write a web application, otherwise I would use an existing framework as suggested. I just wanted to experiment and see what kind of framework I could develop with some ideas I had in mind. I wrote quite a couple web and non web frameworks myself - all ending up in the trash can FWIW, but it certainly has been a very educative experience by itself. I just really like some of the new features of Python 3, and most importantly, unicode compliance is just that much straight forward in my opinion. If you're only writing your framework for learning purposes, you could as well go with Python 3, and implement everything from the ground up (not a trivial task FWIW). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Haha. While I don't disagree with you, I seem to be under the impression that you think I haven't been reading the web where nearly every blog post complains about the abundance of Python frameworks. The thing is, most of the frameworks being commented on in such a way are 'microframeworks' that provide next to nothing. I'm do not mean to say anything negative about them, but I strongly feel that my approach will be much more functional without having to include, or at least a good starting point for newcomers to both Python and web programming. The ideas I had for mine lied somewhere in between a full stack framework and a minimalist approach like said microframeworks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
In article , Phil wrote: > >My interest in Python 3.1 was actually to develop a framework. Again, >I can feel the flames. :) I understand there are enough frameworks but >I actually have no applications that I wish to develop. I enjoy >developing these kinds of things from scratch as a learning >experience. Well, there's a standard joke that just as people learning Scheme write a new language (following SICP), people learning Python write a new web framework. That's why there are so many of them. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "I support family values -- Addams family values" --www.nancybuttons.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Thanks Graham. I actually ended up reading that blog post from a Google search last night before I saw your response. It was very informative. Bruno, I will take a look at those groups to expand my knowledge. When I gave that arbitrary percentage, I was basing it off of the information I had seen with regards to launching applications built with existing frameworks using lighttpd. I do realize I was missing a lot of information by looking up something that specific. I also understand that there are enough frameworks. That still won't change my mind. I do not want to write a web application, otherwise I would use an existing framework as suggested. I just wanted to experiment and see what kind of framework I could develop with some ideas I had in mind. The original post was mostly just because I was having a difficulty understanding some lower level concepts as a result of trying to get Python 3 on the web before figuring out that it wasn't quite ready for that. I just really like some of the new features of Python 3, and most importantly, unicode compliance is just that much straight forward in my opinion. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Phil a écrit : (snip) However, 99.9% of the discussion I see with Python on the web is around FCGI. May I suggest you spend some time reading django-users and django-dev on google groups ? (and that's only *one* of the way-too-many Python web frameworks). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
On Aug 27, 1:02 pm, Phil wrote: > Thanks a lot for another response. I've never posted in groups like > this before but the results are amazing. > > I will definitely consider trying mod_wsgi when I get a chance. I like > the approach taken with it. It is unfortunate that I completely missed > all Apache related material because I was using lighttpd. Is there no > mod_wsgi for lighttpd? I guess I could always just Google that myself. There is no mod_wsgi for lighttpd and suggest there never will be. WSGI doesn't lend itself to working on top of an event driven system. Someone did get a mod_wsgi going on nginx, which is also event driven, but it has limitations due to possibility of blocking other traffic to web server. See: http://blog.dscpl.com.au/2009/05/blocking-requests-and-nginx-version-of.html Graham -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Thanks a lot for another response. I've never posted in groups like this before but the results are amazing. I will definitely consider trying mod_wsgi when I get a chance. I like the approach taken with it. It is unfortunate that I completely missed all Apache related material because I was using lighttpd. Is there no mod_wsgi for lighttpd? I guess I could always just Google that myself. Thanks again for the help. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
On Aug 27, 2:54 am, Phil wrote: > 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. Because FASTCGI is a wire protocol for socket communications and not a programming interface. As such, you would only be creating much more work for your self as you would need to implement a whole lot of code to handle the protocol and then still put a usable interface on top of it. You would also have to come up with what that usable interface should be as well. WSGI already provides that low level interface. > 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. 99.9% of the discussion about Python on the web is not around FASTCGI. Even if there is quite a bit of discussion, it is because documentation on hosting Python on FASTCGI via flup is virtually non existent and so many people have a lot of trouble getting it to work due to peculiarities of different FASTCGI implementations. The dicusssion is therefore because people have problems with it, or feel the need to blog about how they finally got it to work. So, FASTCGI may be the only way for commodity web hosting, but it certainly isn't for self managed servers where mod_wsgi, mod_python and mod_proxy type solutions are going to be preferred. The latter are better documented or easier to setup and so why you possibly don't see as much discussion. In other words, people who get things working easily don't need to ask questions. > 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
Re: Python on the Web
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
Re: Python on the Web
Phil a écrit : I've seen lots of web sites explaining everything, but for whatever reason I seem to not be picking something up. I am a graphical person, which is probably the reason I haven't found my answer. May somebody please confirm if my diagram accurately represents the stack, generally speaking. http://i26.tinypic.com/1fe82x.png Seems correct. Even if that is the case, I'm having a hard time understanding the differences. I guess wsgiref has absolutely nothing to do with FCGI/ SCGI/CGI and simply receives and responds to HTTP requests following the WSGI specification? Yeps. Does it just spawn a new thread for each request? Not AFAICT. The way I am understanding the 'Production' side of that picture is that the web server (eg. lighttpd) creates a single FCGI process. The FCGI process is actually the entry point of the Framework/Application which sets up Flup's WSGIServer, being the interface between FCGI and the Framework/Application? What I mean is, it is just the code that the web server loads to start with, example... from flup.server.fcgi import WSGIServer from app import application WSGIServer(application).run() ... Then for each HTTP request, Flup's WSGIServer creates a new thread to handle the request? I didn't bother reading Flup's source code, but I suppose this might be the case. As I've read elsewhere, "These days, FastCGI is never used directly. Just like mod_python it is only used for the deployment of WSGI applications." As far as I understand, the main (or only?) reasoning for this is because WSGI makes Python applications easier to deploy without having to worry about whether using FCGI/SCGI/CGI. Nor about which web server you use (Apache, lighthttpd, whatever). What would be involved to run Python on the web using FCGI without WSGI? I can feel the flames already. This isn't the only reason I want to know, but one reason is that I want to use Python 3.1 and as I understand, this will have to wait for the WSGI 2.0 specification to ensure time isn't wasted. My humble opinion (based on years of experience in both Python and web programming) is that you're taking the wrong approach. I can only second Robert Kern here: use an existing, well maintained wsgi-compliant framework like Django, Pylons etc, and wait for the framework to be ported to python 3.x. Any other solution will almost certainly end up needing a complete rewrite anytime soon. I apologize if the questions are ridiculous. I've just recently got into web programming and it seems that in order for me to use Python, I need a deep understanding of web servers, HTTP, FCGI, etc. Programming for the web - whatever the language & techno - indeed require a deep (or at least correct) understanding of HTTP and web servers, yes. Even with the abstraction layers provided by frameworks, you still need to understand how the whole damn thing works, what's an HTTP resquest & response and quite a few other things as well. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
A few additional comments on top of what others have said. On Aug 26, 11:09 am, Phil wrote: > I've seen lots of web sites explaining everything, but for whatever > reason I seem to not be picking something up. > I am a graphical person, which is probably the reason I haven't found > my answer. > May somebody please confirm if my diagram accurately represents the > stack, generally speaking. > > http://i26.tinypic.com/1fe82x.png > > Even if that is the case, I'm having a hard time understanding the > differences. I guess wsgiref has absolutely nothing to do with FCGI/ > SCGI/CGI and simply receives and responds to HTTP requests following > the WSGI specification? Technically it receives and responses to request based on HTTP specification, not WSGI specification. The underlying HTTP server translates to and communicates with a Python web application using the WSGI interface. > Does it just spawn a new thread for each > request? If so, then how is this any different than a production > server with FCGI? I would describe there as being four major ways that WSGI can be hosted. These are: 1. Custom build HTTP/WSGI server written in Python. Production quality examples are CherryPy WSGI server and Paste HTTP server. You shouldn't use wsgiref for anything but very simple stuff. 2. Per request process execution by way of CGI and a CGI/WSGI adapter. This could be under Apache or any other web server which supports CGI. 3. Module that embeds Python interpreter into a C based web server. Example are mod_wsgi and mod_python for Apache. Note that mod_python would infrequently be used to host WSGI and doesn't include its own WSGI adapter. These days mod_wsgi for Apache would be used. Processes in this would be persistent. 4. Module in a web server that allows one to communicate using a custom protocol with a separate persistent web application process hosting the web application through a WSGI interface. This convers FASTCGI, SCGI and AJP. The mod_wsgi module for Apache has a hybrid mode which work in a similar way but uses an internal protocol. Amongst these, there are many variations as far as number of process and threads. For a bit of discussion about this in relation to mod_wsgi read: http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/ProcessesAndThreading > The way I am understanding the 'Production' side of that picture is > that the web server (eg. lighttpd) creates a single FCGI process. FASTCGI isn't restricted to a single process, nor single threading. Whether a particular implementation allows for the variations depends on the implementation. > The > FCGI process is actually the entry point of the Framework/Application > which sets up Flup's WSGIServer, being the interface between FCGI and > the Framework/Application? What I mean is, it is just the code that > the web server loads to start with, example... > from flup.server.fcgi import WSGIServer > from app import application > WSGIServer(application).run() > ... Then for each HTTP request, Flup's WSGIServer creates a new thread > to handle the request? > > As I've read elsewhere, "These days, FastCGI is never used directly. Even back in time, I don't think it was really ever used as a generic interface that people worked with directly, there was always a more usable layer built on top of it. > Just like mod_python it is only used for the deployment of WSGI > applications. The mod_python module isn't used just for WSGI applications and is probably rarely used for them. This is because mod_python has its own interface for building web applications. It also has abilities to hook into Apache request handling phases, meaning it can do more than host a a content handler/web application. > As far as I understand, the main (or only?) reasoning > for this is because WSGI makes Python applications easier to deploy > without having to worry about whether using FCGI/SCGI/CGI. WSGI provides for portability, it isn't necessarily easier to use than mod_python. > What would be involved to run Python on the web using FCGI without > WSGI? I can feel the flames already. No, you really don't want to do that. > This isn't the only reason I want > to know, but one reason is that I want to use Python 3.1 and as I > understand, this will have to wait for the WSGI 2.0 specification to > ensure time isn't wasted. Then look at mod_wsgi. It already has support for Python 3.X. Some aspects of how it implements WSGI 1.0 may change, but will not be too much and details are being sorted out in the back rooms as we speak. See: http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/wiki/ChangesInVersion0300 The other option is CherryPy WSGI server as that is close to a Python 3.X release as well, as I perceive it. I wouldn't bother waiting for WSGI 2.0. That is mor
Re: Python on the Web
On Aug 26, 1:17 pm, alex23 wrote: > Phil wrote: > > My interest in Python 3.1 was actually to develop a framework. Again, > > I can feel the flames. :) I understand there are enough frameworks but > > I actually have no applications that I wish to develop. > > No offense intended, but that's probably the worst approach to take. > > Frameworks created for the sake of creating a framework, as opposed to > those written to meet a defined need, tend to be the worst examples of > masturbatory coding. I would in part actually disagree with that. The problem with people creating frameworks to meet some defined need is that they often implement only just enough of that framework to meet that need and nothing more. End result is that the framework is more often than not ever fleshed out enough to be of much use to anyone else. Its existence though just pollutes the Internet with more crap that one has to wade through. Since there is already a plethora of good frameworks out there, if writing an application, you are better of using one of the existing frameworks. If interested in working at the framework level, you would still be much better off looking at the existing frameworks, first learn how they work and then consider contributing to them, rather than implementing your own. For some related reading, see: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2009/7/30/nih-in-the-wsgi-world As far as low level framework (or anti frameworks), suggest looking at Werkzeug, Paste/Pylons and bobo. I'll comment more on original message later. Graham -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
On Aug 25, 11:17 pm, alex23 wrote: > Phil wrote: > > My interest in Python 3.1 was actually to develop a framework. Again, > > I can feel the flames. :) I understand there are enough frameworks but > > I actually have no applications that I wish to develop. > > No offense intended, but that's probably the worst approach to take. > > Frameworks created for the sake of creating a framework, as opposed to > those written to meet a defined need, tend to be the worst examples of > masturbatory coding. No offense taken. I understand your concern. I actually do have some important design decisions I wish to meet. It has sort of been a process of evaluating the things I love and hate most from existing frameworks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Phil wrote: > My interest in Python 3.1 was actually to develop a framework. Again, > I can feel the flames. :) I understand there are enough frameworks but > I actually have no applications that I wish to develop. No offense intended, but that's probably the worst approach to take. Frameworks created for the sake of creating a framework, as opposed to those written to meet a defined need, tend to be the worst examples of masturbatory coding. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
Thank you for the helpful and timely response. My interest in Python 3.1 was actually to develop a framework. Again, I can feel the flames. :) I understand there are enough frameworks but I actually have no applications that I wish to develop. I enjoy developing these kinds of things from scratch as a learning experience. I've been doing fine with 2.x and WSGI, even without understanding half of this stuff. It is actually my first Python project. Haha. I just have my own design philosophies that I wish to experiment with. Python 3.x just makes everything nicer with UNICODE, etc. Although you've been helpful with almost all of the mentioned concerns, I am still looking for more details on some of the questions I've asked. So, if others stumble upon this post, feel free to contribute further. Thanks again. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the Web
On 2009-08-25 20:09 PM, Phil wrote: I've seen lots of web sites explaining everything, but for whatever reason I seem to not be picking something up. I am a graphical person, which is probably the reason I haven't found my answer. May somebody please confirm if my diagram accurately represents the stack, generally speaking. http://i26.tinypic.com/1fe82x.png Even if that is the case, I'm having a hard time understanding the differences. I guess wsgiref has absolutely nothing to do with FCGI/ SCGI/CGI and simply receives and responds to HTTP requests following the WSGI specification? Correct. Does it just spawn a new thread for each request? No, it is single-threaded. If so, then how is this any different than a production server with FCGI? The way I am understanding the 'Production' side of that picture is that the web server (eg. lighttpd) creates a single FCGI process. The FCGI process is actually the entry point of the Framework/Application which sets up Flup's WSGIServer, being the interface between FCGI and the Framework/Application? What I mean is, it is just the code that the web server loads to start with, example... from flup.server.fcgi import WSGIServer from app import application WSGIServer(application).run() ... Then for each HTTP request, Flup's WSGIServer creates a new thread to handle the request? Something like that, yes. As I've read elsewhere, "These days, FastCGI is never used directly. Just like mod_python it is only used for the deployment of WSGI applications." As far as I understand, the main (or only?) reasoning for this is because WSGI makes Python applications easier to deploy without having to worry about whether using FCGI/SCGI/CGI. Yes, that is the primary reason for WSGI, in my mind. There are other things like the composability of applications, but the decoupling of application authoring from deployment is the sine qua non, in my opinion. What would be involved to run Python on the web using FCGI without WSGI? I can feel the flames already. This isn't the only reason I want to know, but one reason is that I want to use Python 3.1 and as I understand, this will have to wait for the WSGI 2.0 specification to ensure time isn't wasted. I am willing to bet that the FCGI libraries haven't been upgraded to Python 3.x, either. I suspect that the most 3.x-updating work will be going into WSGI and the adapters. E.g. http://www.saddi.com/software/news/archives/64-Dabbling-in-Python-3.0.html You may want to rethink the Python 3.x requirement, though. It will probably be much less a waste of your time to write your app using a framework like Django or Pylons on Python 2.x and then upgrade to Python 3.x when they do. I apologize if the questions are ridiculous. I've just recently got into web programming and it seems that in order for me to use Python, I need a deep understanding of web servers, HTTP, FCGI, etc. I have more questions but they go more off topic, so I will save it for another thread, another day. Knowing something about HTTP will certainly help get into the right mindset to know what limitations and capabilities web apps can have. Typically, though, you use a framework that abstracts most of this stuff away from you. You usually only need to delve into the details in very specific circumstances. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python on the Web
I've seen lots of web sites explaining everything, but for whatever reason I seem to not be picking something up. I am a graphical person, which is probably the reason I haven't found my answer. May somebody please confirm if my diagram accurately represents the stack, generally speaking. http://i26.tinypic.com/1fe82x.png Even if that is the case, I'm having a hard time understanding the differences. I guess wsgiref has absolutely nothing to do with FCGI/ SCGI/CGI and simply receives and responds to HTTP requests following the WSGI specification? Does it just spawn a new thread for each request? If so, then how is this any different than a production server with FCGI? The way I am understanding the 'Production' side of that picture is that the web server (eg. lighttpd) creates a single FCGI process. The FCGI process is actually the entry point of the Framework/Application which sets up Flup's WSGIServer, being the interface between FCGI and the Framework/Application? What I mean is, it is just the code that the web server loads to start with, example... from flup.server.fcgi import WSGIServer from app import application WSGIServer(application).run() ... Then for each HTTP request, Flup's WSGIServer creates a new thread to handle the request? As I've read elsewhere, "These days, FastCGI is never used directly. Just like mod_python it is only used for the deployment of WSGI applications." As far as I understand, the main (or only?) reasoning for this is because WSGI makes Python applications easier to deploy without having to worry about whether using FCGI/SCGI/CGI. What would be involved to run Python on the web using FCGI without WSGI? I can feel the flames already. This isn't the only reason I want to know, but one reason is that I want to use Python 3.1 and as I understand, this will have to wait for the WSGI 2.0 specification to ensure time isn't wasted. I apologize if the questions are ridiculous. I've just recently got into web programming and it seems that in order for me to use Python, I need a deep understanding of web servers, HTTP, FCGI, etc. I have more questions but they go more off topic, so I will save it for another thread, another day. I realize there is a large number of questions, so thanks for any help. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the web, how to?
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Atul. wrote: > Hello All, > > Needless to say I am new to python and web programming. I am looking > for a quick Python-101 course / tutorial for "using python to > implement dynamic content on web" under some web server. Any pointers > what should I be reading? Google for "Python web framework" and take your pick. Some popular choices: - Django: http://www.djangoproject.com/ -- associated online book: http://djangobook.com/ - TurboGears: http://turbogears.org/ Cheers, Chris -- http://blog.rebertia.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python on the web, how to?
Hello All, Needless to say I am new to python and web programming. I am looking for a quick Python-101 course / tutorial for "using python to implement dynamic content on web" under some web server. Any pointers what should I be reading? Regards, Atul. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the web - newby question
On Sep 3, 8:41 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SimonPalmer a écrit : > > > Apologies in advance if this is either a) the wrong board or b) been > > answered a million times elsewhere, but... > > > I have been given an assignment to get a python module up and running > > behind an existing web site. At the moment the rest of the site is > > developed in PHP but the hosts have said they will provide python > > support for free, although they haven't given any more details than > > that, so I'm not sure exactly what that means. > > Depending on the hosts, this can range from having an antiquated python > version with only cgi enabled and no way to install anything to the very > last stable release and (almost) whatever third-part lib / frameworks > and correct configuration. > > > All reasonably > > encouraging though. > > > I'm a newbie to python but quite experienced with Java/J2EE/JBoss. > > Quite another world... > > > What I need to know is how I get python running on the server > > For which definition of 'server' ? The computer, or the web server process ? > > > and what > > tools/middleware I would need to have installed on the host's machines > > to be able to support my python modules. > > Depends on your modules dependencies !-) > > More seriously : Python is known has being the language with more web > frameworks than keywords. IOW, there's no simple straightforward answer > to your question. Fisrt choose which Python web development solution you > intend to use, then read the FineManual's "deployment" section of the > chosen solution. > > You'll find pointers to most web-related libs / frameworks > here:http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworkshttp://wiki.python.org/moin/WebProgramming > > Given your situation (Python newcomer with a real job to do), and if > your job is anything more than a very Q&D deadsimple task, I'd > personnaly recommand Django (http://djangiproject.com). Don't let the > version number fools you (latest version is 1.0 release candidate), > Django is a mature, solid and proven solution that have years of > existance, and what they call 1.0rc would be labeled at least 3.5 for > some other software... It's also mostly documented, and there's a strong > community around the framework, so you should not have much problem > getting help. > > For any other Python question (I mean, non django-related), you're at > the right place. > > Oh, and yes, if I may suggest a > reading:http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html > > HTH, and welcome on board... Hey, thanks very much this is really helpful. What I really need is pointers, I'm sure I can figure the rest out. I am indeed a guy with a real job to do. Doesn't help that the client and host are on the other side of the world. I quite like python. As a veteran coder who has tried a lot of languages this has been a pleasant experience so far. I *really* like numpy and scipy. My stock in trade is algorithms and they are quite a revelation. I wish I had known about them sooner and I think they will keep me coming back to python regularly. Thanks again. SP -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python on the web - newby question
SimonPalmer a écrit : Apologies in advance if this is either a) the wrong board or b) been answered a million times elsewhere, but... I have been given an assignment to get a python module up and running behind an existing web site. At the moment the rest of the site is developed in PHP but the hosts have said they will provide python support for free, although they haven't given any more details than that, so I'm not sure exactly what that means. Depending on the hosts, this can range from having an antiquated python version with only cgi enabled and no way to install anything to the very last stable release and (almost) whatever third-part lib / frameworks and correct configuration. All reasonably encouraging though. I'm a newbie to python but quite experienced with Java/J2EE/JBoss. Quite another world... What I need to know is how I get python running on the server For which definition of 'server' ? The computer, or the web server process ? and what tools/middleware I would need to have installed on the host's machines to be able to support my python modules. Depends on your modules dependencies !-) More seriously : Python is known has being the language with more web frameworks than keywords. IOW, there's no simple straightforward answer to your question. Fisrt choose which Python web development solution you intend to use, then read the FineManual's "deployment" section of the chosen solution. You'll find pointers to most web-related libs / frameworks here: http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworks http://wiki.python.org/moin/WebProgramming Given your situation (Python newcomer with a real job to do), and if your job is anything more than a very Q&D deadsimple task, I'd personnaly recommand Django (http://djangiproject.com). Don't let the version number fools you (latest version is 1.0 release candidate), Django is a mature, solid and proven solution that have years of existance, and what they call 1.0rc would be labeled at least 3.5 for some other software... It's also mostly documented, and there's a strong community around the framework, so you should not have much problem getting help. For any other Python question (I mean, non django-related), you're at the right place. Oh, and yes, if I may suggest a reading: http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html HTH, and welcome on board... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python on the web - newby question
Apologies in advance if this is either a) the wrong board or b) been answered a million times elsewhere, but... I have been given an assignment to get a python module up and running behind an existing web site. At the moment the rest of the site is developed in PHP but the hosts have said they will provide python support for free, although they haven't given any more details than that, so I'm not sure exactly what that means. All reasonably encouraging though. I'm a newbie to python but quite experienced with Java/J2EE/JBoss. What I need to know is how I get python running on the server and what tools/middleware I would need to have installed on the host's machines to be able to support my python modules. Again, apologies if this is the wrong place but I'm a bit lost and would really appreciate some pointers. TIA Simon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
