On 31 March 2012 14:36, PJ Eby <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Now when doing mod_wsgi, a similar method of loading each file
>>
>> separately with a __name__ based on file system path was used to
>> ensure each was distinct when same file name used in different
>> directories.
>
>
> Why give them a __name__ at all? Aren't they scripts, rather than modules?
> ISTM that not having a __name__ would also let things like pickles fail
> faster. That is, code that expected a module rather than a script would
> break right away.
Because not having a __name__ attribute at all would make:
if __name__ == '__main__':
...
fail straight away and people quite often had that in scripts so they
could run it directly as well with a pure WSGI server.
>> FWIW, in the past when pushing the idea of a WSGI script file being
>> the lowest common denominator, part of the reason I found I couldn't
>> get it accepted is that some people simply didn't understand how in
>> Python to load an arbitrary file by path name and construct a module
>> for it in memory, with magic __name__. They seemed to think that the
>> only way to import a code file was for it to have a .py extension and
>> for the directory to be in sys.path. So, due to ignorance of the
>> solution as to how to do it meant I got a push back from some people.
>
> Who were you trying to get acceptance from? Web-SIG or Python-Dev?
> Framework devs or end-users? Is there a PEP?
I brought it up on the WEB-SIG. It may have been bad timing amongst
all the other discussions that went around in circles at the time on
the WEB-SIG. Also mentioned it in passing to some WSGI server
developers and other people when discussing web stuff at meet ups or
otherwise.
Graham
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
[email protected]
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
