[Web-SIG] serving (potentially large) files through wsgi?

[Manlio Perillo]

Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
> At 09:50 PM 12/18/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>>> At 09:06 PM 12/17/2007 +0100, Manlio Perillo wrote:
>>>> Phillip J. Eby ha scritto:
>>>>> This is precisely why WSGI doesn't really have any "configuration" 
>>>>> defined, because the whole idea is that it should be as 
>>>>> "plug-and-play" as possible.  Server-level configuration options 
>>>>> are a liability to be avoided, a sometimes-necessary evil.  They 
>>>>> aren't a feature.
>>>>
>>>> Disagree.
>>> Note that your disagreement doesn't retroactively change WSGI's 
>>> design goals or rationale,
>>
>>
>> I disagree with your "Server-level configuration options are a 
>> liability to be avoided, a sometimes-necessary evil" phrase.
> 
> As I said, that doesn't retroactively alter the WSGI rationale.
> 
> 
>> But now I'm not sure of what do you mean by "configuration".
> 
> I mean configuring the *server* to correctly run a WSGI application, not 
> the application's configuration.  


Ok, I was talking about *application* configuration, sorry.

> For example, a server option to 
> control whether Range requests are supported would be an example of 
> "server configuration" - i.e., something to be avoided since it forces a 
> user to make a choice about something he or she may know nothing about.
> 

Ok.
Here I would just say that when someone install something on its system, 
it should at least know what he is doing.

And about an option for range control, it is true that it will "force" 
an user to make a choice, but this is not a good reason for not adding 
the option at all.

This is about server flexibility: nginx has a lot of options, many of 
them have safe default so if the user does not know what to do, he can 
just use default values.



 > [...]



Manlio Perillo