[Web-SIG] Standardised configuration.
paul.boddie at ementor.no
Mon Sep 6 16:33:58 CEST 2004
David Warnock wrote:
> But I for 1 can certainly imagine an "application" consisting of
> servers, so that parts of the "application/site" are webware, part
> twisted, part quixote. If all these supported wsgi and if there were a
> wsgi session add-on then surely this heads towards the possible, and
> makes lots of things much easier to assemble/develop/extend.
Yes, once you've discarded the Webware session mechanisms (or most
swapped them out within Webware itself), and once you've done the same
Quixote and Twisted (or quite probably added sessions to Twisted unless
comes with session support these days), you could have a session manager
some kind under the applications. It might even have to happen under the
frameworks, since I suppose you would need to define how best to make
servers co-exist and then add this session manager so that all server
environments are affected in the same way.
What I've done so far with certain WebStack examples is to provide a
resource which deals with authentication and then to add the actual
application functionality as a resource within that resource. I imagine
the chaining of WSGI components would be done in a similar fashion,
WebStack doesn't address the issue of dispatching through different
environments, whereas your example situation would have to tackle that
More information about the Web-SIG