[Web-SIG] A more useful command-line wsgiref.simple_server?
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Mar 30 04:25:04 CEST 2012
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Sasha Hart <s at sashahart.net> wrote:
> If the colon can be made safe for Windows it might be desirable, since
> it looks fine and reflects existing practice in a number of places.
For *modules*, yes. For scripts, no.
But for module names, there's no conflict.
> (A) accept only one of the two types of input at all (e.g. insist only
> on importable module name - it looks like this is what gunicorn does
> and I like it a lot - short of having your code installed on system
> PYTHONPATH, or using virtualenv PYTHONPATH, you can also do this if
> you are in the directory of the script/package)
This would tend to be my preference, if we don't support both.
> (B) use --file=c:\app.py or similar to disambiguate what kind of
> parsing to do - then the typical case can be the importable and users
> who really want to refer to files explicitly can do so
This is my preference if we do support both - to explicitly separate
modules from scripts somehow.
(E) give up colon: first arg is a filepath-or-pythonmodulepath, and
> optional second arg is what would have come after the colon. I think
> this is your suggestion and it's not unreasonable at all. If we are
> talking about 'python -m wsgiref.simple_server c:app app' then the
> second positional arg is definitely not the weirdest looking part. I
> just question whether it's really necessary - why not either drop the
> implicit specification of a filename (A/B) or enforce backslash after
> root on windows (C)?
I don't like accepting both scripts and modules without an explicit marking
as to which you're providing. People confuse the two concepts enough
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Web-SIG