At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +0000, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Alice BevanMcGregor <al...@...> writes: > > [1] http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So, while we are at it, could we get rid of the "CGI server example" in this new SWGI spec? This is 2011, and we should promote modern idioms, not encourage people to do 1995 Web programming. 10 years ago, CGI was already frown upon. (and even the idea that WSGI should provide some kind of CGI compatibility sounds a bit ridiculous to me) Regards Antoine.
I still use CGI for the odd one-off, testing, prototyping, etc., and it's by far the easiest thing to deploy on a lot of web hosts. Hell, even Google App Engine *emulates* CGI in its default deployment configuration, IIRC. So it's not exactly obsolete.
Also, the main purpose of the example is to show what a web server developer needs to do to hook up their own piping to provide WSGI services... and most web server developers have something like CGI code already lying around, or at least know what CGI looks like.
_______________________________________________ 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/pje%40telecommunity.com
_______________________________________________ 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
