[Web-SIG] Is PEP 3333 the final solution for WSGI on Python 3?
jacob at jacobian.org
Fri Oct 22 18:37:24 CEST 2010
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Graham Dumpleton
<graham.dumpleton at gmail.com> wrote:
> No other developers of actual web frameworks has commented at all on
> PEP 3333 from what I can see.
I wrote a bunch about WSGI/Py3 on python-dev:
My feelings haven't changed: deploying Python 2 is awesome. Deploying
Python 3 is impossible. To quote at length from myself:
Deploying web apps under Python 2 right now is actually pretty
awesome. There's a clear leader in mod_wsgi that's fast, stable, easy
to use, and under active development. There's a few great lightweight
pure-Python servers, some new-hotness (Gunicorn) and some
tried-and-true (CherryPy). There's a fast-as-hell bleeding-edge option
(nginx + uwsgi). And those are just the ones I've successfully put
into production -- there're still *more* options if one of those won't
The key here is that switching between all of these deployment
situations is *incredibly* easy. [...]
Python 3 offers me none of this. I don't have a wide variety of tools
to choose from. Worse, I don't even have a guarantee of
interoperability between the tools that *do* exist.
The reason I'm not chiming on on 3333 vs 444 is that I DON'T CARE.
Just give me something that works on Python 3, dammit.
I can't even begin to think about moving to Python 3 until I've got a
solid standard with multiple implementations. It seems to me that PEP
3333 could land faster than PEP 444, but if that's not true, again, I
don't care. I just want a deployment answer for Python 3.
I'm sorry if I sound petulant here, but I'm really quite frustrated. I
want to be moving to Python 3 a couple of years ago, and I just don't
understand the issues and problems in WSGI and web servers to be able
to help out. If I was smart enough, I'd help. Instead, I'm trying to
use the bully pulpit any way I can. Please, people, move this damn
More information about the Web-SIG