Pimping the 'cgi' module

robert no-spam at no-spam-no-spam.invalid
Fri Nov 24 17:42:36 CET 2006


Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Christoph Haas wrote:
> 
>>> well, note, for that they have named it Ruby-On-Rails, so its still the
>>> language - leveraged. While it is Zope/Django/Ego-on-Python ... ?
>> If by that you mean that neither Zope nor Django are exactly pythonic I
>> think I concur.
> 
> Django is highly Pythonic (it's pure Python plus templates, and has the same
> "pencil-like qualities" as Python itself).  Zope 3 is highly Pythonic too, but a
> rather more advanced form of Python.  but they're both application servers,
> not CGI scripting environments.

pythonic yes, but ..-on-python

>>> First need of course: an update of that cgi "module".
>> Oh, yeah. I just joined the Web SIG and found out that WSGI seems the way
>> to go. At a first look it seems horrible if you just want to provide a CGI
>> module.
> 
> WSGI is a CGI replacement, not a CGI implementation.  Which is a good thing,
> because what really matters, if you think about what a web server is doing, is the
> HTTP protocol, not an old and not always practical httpd extension standard.
> WSGI simply provides plumbing for working very close to the HTTP level.
> 
> (you can of course create a WSGI-compatible adapter for CGI in no time at
> all, but that's not really the point of WSGI).

its a low level tech basis. Regarding the discussion here, its also the enabler for the confusion :-)

>> Somehow I sadly feel I would just add another incomplete  framework to that
>> pile.
> 
> as they say, if you don't understand history, you're bound to repeat it ;-)

we are currently bound to repeat 30+ histories. no wonder - nobody will ever understand it and go to Rails & Co.

>> I'm especially unsure whether it's good or bad to create another "I'm sick
>> of the standard library"-style module. I've just become a bit less
>> confident to actually contribute something useful there. Overwhelming.
> 
> Building a "like cgi.py, but with more support for the kind of things people actually
> need" library would be an excellent idea.  It's not clear from your posts that you
> "get" what things like Django and Zope do, and how that's different from "CGI
> programming", but if you have a deep understanding of the latter, I'm sure you
> could come up with a nice "cgi2.py" library with relatively little effort.  Get to
> work!

think both are missing standard modules: cgi2 and a comfortable OO-dispatcher/server with clear tutorials. And to have them in front on the Python display window.


Robert



More information about the Python-list mailing list