Is mod_python 3.1 good for commercial blogging/CMS?

[Anthony L.]

In article <1131445452.395804.169860 at g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "Ben Sizer" <kylotan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Anthony L. wrote:
> > 1. I want to use CGI through Publisher handler, instead of CGI handler
> > or PSP. Despite the speed increase mod_python gives me, there is a
> > problem of persistence that can be a problem when dealing with a site
> > that will hosts potentially hundreds of simultaneous users.
> 
> What problem? Could you elaborate further?

Hi Ben. This is what I myself am trying to find out. From what I gather, 
hosts dislike long running processes, and so one reason for not 
supporting Python and mod_python is that, plus multiple instances of the 
python interpreter. Granted, a lot of this looks like old information 
combined with FUD, so I am suspicious. After all, high-traffic sites 
using mod_perl seem okay.

> In theory, people use these templates to /improve/ the separation
> between logic and presentation. When you just use req.write() you're
> inevitably mixing logic and presentation. At least with the template
> systems, you do the presentation once and the logic fills in the gaps.
> It's even possible to edit the presentation in many WYSIWYG web editors
> without affecting the code.

Yes, I see your point. In this case it works for me (at the moment) 
because the HTML design will remain as is without subject to editing, 
whereas the look and feel (controlled by CSS) will be user-editable.

> I don't think performance is a factor, really. HTML templates tend to
> exist so that you can structure the page without worrying about the
> Python code. They work well for fairly uniform pages that largely
> require the same sort of data on each page. I am more of a programmer
> than a designer so I prefer to think in terms of code and emit HTML as
> it suits me.

Okay, I might have been unfair in looking away from PSP then. Thanks Ben.

Anthony