At Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:19:48 +0000 (UTC), Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > P.J. Eby <p...@...> writes: > > > > 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. > > Really? Isn't that the kind of thing for which wsgiref should be the > preferred > choice? > As for deployment, why would anyone recommend using CGI in production? > > Regards > > Antoine. >
It is important to recognize that "production" doesn't necessarily have to be some ultra powerful server somewhere that is central to some organization. A simple server running Apache with CGI is just as valid a production environment as an EC2 cluster. This is especially true when you are the only person using the application and requirements are minimal. The point being that in terms of the specification, it should be plausible a person could use a WSGI application without heavy server requirements. Shared hosting is the obvious example here but minimal virtual machines may also fit into this category. Eric Larson > > _______________________________________________ > 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/eric%40ionrock.org _______________________________________________ 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
