Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The whole point of the changes which were made was to draw a well
defined line between the code modules used in the web application and
which reside in the document tree, or other specially specified areas
by way of mod_python module importer path, and the standard
For me, it's a tie between Quetzalcoatl Scales.
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
So I think we've got (in no particular order):
PythonScript
Pythonidae
PyPache
pythonalia
Quetzalcoatl
Asphyxia
Scales
Pythonistas
PigeonPy
Pungi
Would people (ANYONE here on the list, yes, that includes
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
1. Python is not a good name for this project because Apache Python
will just be too confusing and probably infringes on a PSF trademark. So
if you have any creative suggestions, send them in, don't be shy, even
if you think they may sound a little stupid at
Mike Looijmans wrote:
Apache includes a feather in its logo, and Python is associated with a
snake. Quetzalcoatl means feathered snake and does not appear to
be used by any other software project.
Which I can fully understand, because Quetzalcoatl is harder to
pronounce than the 16 character
+1 Slackware Linux 10.2, Apache 2.2.3 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4.1
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.3.1 tarball is available for testing. Hopefully
Nicolas will have a chance to create Windows installers for testing in
the next couple of days.
There have been no changes in the code since
It might be prudent to test against Apache 2.2.4, which was released two
days ago. I'll try to do this over the weekend and submit the results.
Jim Gallacher wrote:
We don't seem to be getting any more feedback on 3.3.0b (+1's across the
board), so how does everyone feel about rolling out
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
BTW, in respect of what version of mod_python we write examples for, my
preference would be that we target mod_python 3.3 and then as followup by way
of embedded notes, footnotes or subpages, indicate how it may have to be
changed to work with older versions or whether
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Anyone got any ideas about how we can run a semi informal review process
on any major new additions. When a page has been up for a while just going
in and making them change is reasonable, but if the person is in the process
of still putting it together what is the best
Hi, Jim:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The following page has been changed by JoreyBump:
http://wiki.apache.org/mod_python/MostMinimalRequestHandler
--
Let's begin at the beginning. Here is the most minimal request
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.3-0-dev-20061109 tarball is available for testing.
As this is a minor version bump, is there a link to the changelog so we
know what new behaviour to expect/test?
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
There are two things you can do to gauge where any loss arises. First is to
ensure that module reloading is turned off and see how that changes things.
PythonAutoReload Off
The second is to reenable the old module importer as a comparison. This needs
to be done at
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Jorey Bump wrote:
I've installed it on a lightly used production server so I can test it
against some real-world apps. Initial testing indicates that it's
10-20% slower than 3.2.10; I'm not sure why.
Ouch. Is that from a benchmark or just a gut feeling?
It was from
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Jorey Bump wrote:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.3-0-dev-20061109 tarball is available for testing.
As this is a minor version bump, is there a link to the changelog so
we know what new behaviour to expect/test?
Take a look at doc-html/app-changes-from-3.2.10
+1 Linux Slackware 10.2, Apache 2.2.3, Python 2.4.1
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.3-0-dev-20061109 tarball is available for testing.
We are almost ready for a 3.3.0 release. It's been a while since we've
had extensive testing of trunk and I think it would be wise to have a
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
which I don't think can be used in older versions anyway. The only other area I
have been concerned about is how we have been progressively adding to the chain
of strcmps in request object where special stuff has to be done when accessing
or setting attributes. This
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
The only area I guess one may have to be careful with is if you have used
PythonPath directive to extend module search path, especially if you
reference directories in the document tree. This may result in mod_python
complaining in the Apache error log at you and in
Sébastien Arnaud wrote:
Directory /mypath/mydir/
AddHandler mod_python .py .html
PythonHandler mod_python.pubre
PythonOption pubregex
(?Pcontroller[\w]+)?(\.(?Pextension[\w]+))?(/(?Paction[^/]+))?(\?$)?
/Directory
I know that not all grammars will work with the current version
+1 Linux Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4.1
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.2.10 tarball is available for testing.
Part way through the release process for 3.2.9 a fix was found for
several memory leaks (MODPYTHON-172). We've decided to skip the official
3.2.9
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
(we'll just have to make a
3.2.11 then).
Let's call that one the Spinal Tap version. :)
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
On 29/06/2006, at 9:29 PM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
+1 Linux Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55, Python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Slackware 10.2, Apache 2.2.0, Python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Zenwalk 2.6, Apache 2.2.2, Python 2.4.3
These 3 were all prefork.
In respect of
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Mike Looijmans wrote:
I think this surprised many of us, as no one on the list seems to have
thought of that use case. Trac subclasses FieldStorage to get behaviour
more in line with cgi.py. We don't have any prohibitions on subclassing,
so although we didn't foresee this
+1 Linux Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55, Python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Slackware 10.2, Apache 2.2.0, Python 2.4.1
+1 Linux Zenwalk 2.6, Apache 2.2.2, Python 2.4.3
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The mod_python 3.2.9-rc3 tarball is available for testing. This release
adds support for apache 2.2 as well as some
+1
But I think any example functions in the documentation should return
apache.AUTH_DENIED by default, with the conditionals checking for
success, not failure:
def authbasicprovider(req, user, password):
if user in users:
if users[user] == password:
return
-1 Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.2.0 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4
My applications are working, but make check produces these errors:
==
FAIL: test_req_auth_type (__main__.PerRequestTestCase)
are intentionally caused by the
tests, so I've sent you the error_log.
Jorey Bump wrote:
-1 Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.2.0 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4
My applications are working, but make check produces these errors:
==
FAIL
Jim Gallacher wrote:
I'm looking for mod_auth_basic.c. Either it's missing or you have it
compiled as a dynamic module. Could you re-run again using httpd -M? I
should have asked for that in the first place. :(
~# /usr/local/apache2/bin/httpd -M
Loaded Modules:
core_module (static)
+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
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
If you see any problems with this text, let me know.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 22:00:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: announce@httpd.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
This is how I would set priorities:
Try and assign most of the issues to someone. This is a bit of PR spin,
but I think it looks bad when there are a large number of open issues
with no assignee. To the public it may look like the project is not
being actively
Jim Gallacher wrote:
The generated output can be found at
http://people.apache.org/~jgallacher/mod_python/website-test.
The only links that you should really trust are under the Get Involved
meun heading. There is likely all sorts of incorrect or missing content.
This is only intended as a
Graham Dumpleton (JIRA) wrote:
On a virtual hosting environment such as OpenVPS, localhost does not map to the IP
address 127.0.0.1 but the actual IP of the host.
import socket
socket.gethostbyname(localhost)
'207.126.122.36'
This fact causes the connection handler test to fail
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Jorey Bump wrote:
IOW, could you guys list the OS on which you run, and not merely test,
mod_python?
By you guys I assume you mean the above 4 people?
Yeah, youse 4 guys. :)
On the other hand, you may mean *all* the people on python-dev who test
a release candidate
Mike Looijmans wrote:
Seriously, I think Grisha's way is right - the three musketeers should
decide based on the feedback they get. There's no substitute for running
on other people's machines...
2006/1/19, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks Roy. Very timely, since
Mike Looijmans wrote:
Since I have a CoLinux instance on my machine here, I wanted to give it
a go with mod_python as well (need a linux test environment for
mod_python anyway).
It's running a Debian distro, I have gcc-3.3 on it, as well as
apache2-dev and python-dev (version 2.3).
Can't
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It looks like mod_python is making good progress and everyone
is collaborating in the Apache way of testing and voting.
That's great!
Unfortunately, I have almost no insight into who these great people
are that are doing the RM task and testing and voting and preparing
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Jorey Bump wrote ..
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
So, please, take a few moments to decide amongst yourselves who
should have binding votes on mod_python (i.e., who has earned it),
keeping in mind that you need at least three binding +1 votes in
order to make any release
+1 Slackware 10.1, Apache 2.0.55 (mpm-prefork), Python 2.4
Jim Gallacher wrote:
$ ./configure --with-apxs=/wherever/it/is
$ make
$ (su)
# make install
Then (as non-root user!)
$ cd test
$ python test.py
What are the chances of enhancing the procedure as follows:
$ ./configure
Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Anyone know if there are any technical reasons why input/output filters
as they exist at the moment, applying only to body content and not
headers, can not be specified in a .htaccess files?
Specifically, the SetInputFilter, SetOutputFilter, AddInputFilter and
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Is there a wait to use macro directives so that we don't need to
maintain two separate branches ? A define that we could pass when
building mod_python to select the Apache version we're building against,
maybe ?
If it's possible to make the code in connobject.c
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I don't know what the specific issue is with parsed_uri, if this is a
mod_python bug it should just be fixed BUT if this is an issue with
httpd, I don't think we should cover the problem up by having
mod_python fix it. Since we are
Daniel J. Popowich wrote:
Jorey Bump writes:
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
Perhaps we can add something to the docs that says this attribute gets
its data from the argument to the HTTP GET method, which is usually just
the path in the URL and does not include the protocol, hostname
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Jorey Bump wrote:
req.add_common_vars()
servername = req.subprocess_env['SERVER_NAME']
That's a waste of CPU cycles, since add_common_vars() copies it from
req.server.server_hostname (most likely, haven't check for sure
+1
Apache 2.0.55
Python 2.4.1
gcc 3.3.4
Slackware 10.1 (Linux 2.4.29)
Jim Gallacher wrote:
A new mod_python 3.2.5 beta tarball is now available for testing. A
windows binary should be available shortly.
This release is similar to 3.2.4b but fixes a couple of minor issues -
MODPYTHON-87
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nick wrote:
More info:
python 2.4.2 on Linux:
import tempfile
t = tempfile.TemporaryFile()
t
open file 'fdopen', mode 'w+b' at 0xb7df07b8
type(t)
type 'file'
dir(t)
['__class__', '__delattr__', '__doc__', '__getattribute__',
'__hash__', '__init__', '__iter__',
Where do I file a documentation bug? Rule #6 appears to be missing. ;)
Sydney Nolan
Nick wrote:
In that case, let us just apply Rule #6 to this situation.
Bruce
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Well, this is python, so everyone really should be called Bruce. Maybe
that will help.
Regards,
Bruce
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
That being said, why SQLite ? Because it's simple to install and use (no
administration required). You just give it a file name and you're ready
to roll. Plus, I really wanted to experiment with SQLite :).
I must confess that the current implementation seems 30% slower
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
The announcement does not need to go into such detail, so how about:
Personally, I found the detailed announcement very useful, because it
flags exactly what I should check in my own applications before
switching over. My 2 cents.
Jim Gallacher wrote:
I'm putting together a list of things which we may want to work on for
3.3, one of which is documentation improvements.
Is there any technical reason that the request members are not sorted
alphabetically? The current arrangement makes me a little crazy.
Check the 3.1.4
+1 (slightly patched for Apache 2.1.x)
Slackware Linux 10.1
gcc version 3.3.4
Python 2.4.1
Apache 2.1.6 Alpha
Jim Gallacher wrote:
A new mod_python 3.2.2 beta tarball is now available for testing.
Hopefully this will be the last beta before the official 3.2 release.
Here are the rules:
In
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi,
Could we focus on Apache 2.0 for the 3.2 release ? Put 2.1 on the
agenda for a later release (why not 3.3 ?).
For the moment I don't see any quick and easy way to support both 2.0
and 2.1, from what you wrote. I'd rather we try to get 3.2 out with a
proper 2.0
Jim Gallacher wrote:
A new mod_python 3.2 beta tarball is now available for testing. A
Windows binary for python 2.4 is also provided.
Please download it, then do the usual
$ ./configure --with-apxs=/wherever/it/is
$ make
$ (su)
# make install
Then (as non-root user!)
$ cd test
$ python
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Interestingly, section 5.1.1 says that The methods GET and HEAD MUST be
supported by all general-purpose servers., so it would seem that
mod_python has not been compliant to the RFC.
FWIW, the Debian Woody package of mod_python (libapache-mod-python
2.7.8-0.0woody5)
Juha-Matti Tapio wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:04:04AM -0400, Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Having some contact with them directly is probably a good idea anyway.
Subscribing to a bunch of mailing lists could result in a lot of
uninteresting mail. ;)
I think it would be
53 matches
Mail list logo
