[Web-SIG] Web Container Interface
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Fri Jan 23 14:11:07 EST 2004
At 11:26 AM 1/23/04 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
>I'm afraid I hadn't kept up with Web-SIG back when this came up, but maybe
>that's okay since the topic seems to need revisiting anyway, since the
>topic has been pretty quiet for a while. So... what's the status of
>Phillip's web container proposal?
It's waiting for me to have enough spare cycles to write another
draft. I've been pretty bogged down with "real work" lately.
>The biggest issue I see with it is that the container needs to be passed
>as one of the arguments to runCGI. This allows for greater integration of
>the application and the container.
But there isn't any functionality the proposal requires of the container
beyond this. For example, what would a plain CGI container provide? A
FastCGI container? For a lowest-common-denominator interface, what
"integration" is possible or needed?
> Blech... I don't like those terms, because the container's primary
> responsibility isn't containment, and the application's function is
> probably more general than a web application's. I'd rather see the
> container called something like the HTTP Driver, or otherwise indicating
> that it is the bridge between this simplified CGI interface, and the full
> HTTP interface. It may provide an HTTP interface, like with Twisted, or
> it may simply be a bridge to Apache or another server. Container means
> nothing to me. But I digress...
Okay. I used container to imply that the application "runs within" the
container, ala servlet containers and bean containers in Java. But I
didn't want to call the application a "servlet", since that implies
long-runningness. OTOH, maybe we *should* call them servlets, since only a
plain CGI container won't be long-running.
The Java servlet API has a total of 5 methods: init(), service(),
destroy(), getServletConfig(), and getServletInfo(). service() is
essentially runCGI() with request and response objects. From my POV, none
of the other four are of much use for simple containers, and it was
specifically intended that the proposal not try to go into the highly
controversial request/response interface area.
>The interface is sparse, and doesn't allow for things like leaving headers
>parsed (which is something several containers would prefer).
I'm not sure I'm following you. As it sits, the proposal *requires* parsed
headers on output. It's unparsed headers that aren't supported.
> That's okay, but it would be nice -- even if only in an ad hoc manner --
> if applications could query the container about what it is and how it
> works. To do that we need to pass some sort of reference to the
> container, even if the nature of that object remains undefined.
If you could present a concrete use case, it'd be a lot easier to
understand what a solution might be.
>The other (related) issue I see is the reliance on configuration. One of
>the goals, presumably, is that frameworks that encompass both container
>and application (as Webware does) partition themselves more
>clearly. That's no big deal -- Webware already has a function very like
>runCGI (Webware.WebKit.Application.dispatchRawRequest), and translating
>the method signatures is trivial.
>Unfortunately, the real effort is in allowing it all to be "configured" to
>work with different backends, or the backend with different
>applications. This reliance on configuration seems very Java. I hate
>configuration. A lot. It makes programmers into system administrators,
>to the detriment of both programmers and system administrators.
I'm not sure I'm following this either. If you prefer to use code to
connect things, what's wrong with:
from some_container import Container
from some_framework import App
c = Container(
c.run() # or whatever some_container says you do to start the Container
...for arbitrary values of Container and App? If you need to set up
container-specific settings, we're only talking about adding a few more
arguments to Container.__init__. And if you need app-specific
configuration, the same thing is true for App.
So, I'm not getting what problem you're trying to solve here. Presumably,
a given framework and/or container developer would simply create wrapper
classes corresponding to Container and App above, using options that are
relevant to that particular container or framework.
>Perhaps this richer interface is the sort of thing we should be developing
>on an as-needed basis, like I would do for Webware, and hopefully as
>others did the same we'd informally start to agree on what that might look
>like. And frankly, until this interface *is* developed, I don't think
>runCGI alone is a useful interface. But it's a place to start.
And I don't think that you could get anywhere near a common interface until
you first had something for people to build stuff on. :) When we all get
tired of writing our 10-line scripts to pass keyword arguments to a
container and an app (because we're doing the same things over and over
again), we can always add some shortcuts into a WCI 2.0 API. In the
meantime, we'll have had the advantage of being able to connect things up
More information about the Web-SIG