[Web-SIG] WSGI adoption

[Robert Brewer]

Peter Hunt wrote:
> >It's going slowly but surely, as I can tell from my Googling. I think
> >we could speed adoption very quickly if we all got together and
> >created stable, tested, proven, and officialy WSGI gateways.

and Phillip J. Eby replied:
> ...
> That leaves ASP+Python and Zope.

ASP has at least two large problems:

1. IIS, as far as I can tell, has no facility for letting a Python
application know whether it's being run in a shared process or not (the
Low, Medium, High settings for "Application Protection"). To find these
out, we'd either have to make deployers enter the value in their config
file (and maintain that in sync with IIS), or write some *very* ugly
registry hacks to get at the application name and read the protection
level. I'm still not sure the latter can be done. I gave up after a
couple of days.

2. ASP expects each reachable URL to have a valid file on the server.
That means, if you want your user to access "/myapp.htm", there must be
a file "myapp.htm" in the root directory of your site (and that folder
must map the ".htm" extension to asp.dll). If your site needs 100 URL's,
you need 100 such files physically present. IIRC, an ISAPI .dll can get
around this, but ASP can't. Not that this can't be worked around; Cation
(my framework) has a URL dispatcher which will create the files for you
(they're all boilerplate).


Robert Brewer
MIS
Amor Ministries
fumanchu at amor.org