[Web-SIG] CGI in PEP 444

[Ron Stephens]

CGI is by far the quickest and easiest way to write and deploy very simple web site scripts. As you move to improve Python for important industrial strength web programming, why not also continue to support quick and dirty web interactivity scripts? 

Ron Stephens

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 4, 2011, at 7:53 AM, "P.J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

> At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +0000, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> Alice Bevan McGregor <alice at ...> writes: > > [1] http:://bit.ly/e7rtI6 So, while we are at it, could we get rid of the "CGI server example" in this new SWGI spec? This is 2011, and we should promote modern idioms, not encourage people to do 1995 Web programming. 10 years ago, CGI was already frown upon. (and even the idea that WSGI should provide some kind of CGI compatibility sounds a bit ridiculous to me) Regards Antoine.
> 
> I still use CGI for the odd one-off, testing, prototyping, etc., and it's by far the easiest thing to deploy on a lot of web hosts.  Hell, even Google App Engine *emulates* CGI in its default deployment configuration, IIRC.  So it's not exactly obsolete.
> 
> Also, the main purpose of the example is to show what a web server developer needs to do to hook up their own piping to provide WSGI services...  and most web server developers have something like CGI code already lying around, or at least know what CGI looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG at python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/pje%40telecommunity.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web-SIG mailing list
> Web-SIG at python.org
> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/rdsteph%40mac.com