Graham Dumpleton wrote: > On 24/05/07, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> > Does anyone think this would be nice extension for a WSGI adapter >> > written against current specification to implement even if not >> > necessarily portable? >> >> Eh. In the context of mod_wsgi, I think it would be more interesting to >> provide a WSGI application that called back into Apache (basically >> wrapping Apache's normal subrequest machinery in a WSGI exterior). > > I was trying to avoid as much as possible having mod_wsgi provide any > sort of hooks which would allow one to perform actions against > internals of Apache. I had two reasons for this.
This is a much more constrained hook into Apache than what mod_python provides. For instance, you could provide much the same thing, but where subrequests actually go out over HTTP. There's quite a bit of data you couldn't share over HTTP, so it's not entirely equivalent, but it's still pretty close (especially if there was something on the Apache side to fix up the slightly-richer-than-HTTP environment based on special headers). -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org | Write code, do good | http://topp.openplans.org/careers _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
