[Web-SIG] Re: WSGI - alternative ideas
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Sun Aug 15 06:26:43 CEST 2004
At 08:27 PM 8/14/04 -0400, angryhicKclown at netscape.net wrote:
>Thanks for replying.
>Python does need sessions, pooling, and caching, but, as I understand it,
>they would be implemented as separate modules on top of WSGI?
More precisely, the idea is to convince authors of existing frameworks that
provide those services, to enable their frameworks to be run under various
web servers, and the authors of web servers, to support WSGI so those
frameworks can run.
To a limited extent, WSGI itself can support new "ultralight" frameworks,
in the sense that WSGI is intended to allow easy creation of "middleware"
components. For example, one could create a WSGI "session manager" that
looks at a request and adds a session object to the 'environ' dictionary
under a special key.
The point is that since it's a standardized API, you can plug together
whatever components you want or need.
>And how about simply creating a wsgi module that emulates the cgi module,
>except works across different web platforms?
That's not in scope for the WSGI, whose goals specifically state that the
specification must *not* require anything added to the standard library.
This does not preclude separate proposals for standard library enhancements
based on WSGI; it's just that they're not a part of *this* proposal.
More information about the Web-SIG