Python web frameworks

[Ian Bicking]

On Nov 22, 11:00 am, Istvan Albert <istvan.alb... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 12:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <Graham.Dumple... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would say that that is now debatable. Overall mod_wsgi is probably a
> > better package in terms of what it has to offer. Only thing against
> > mod_wsgi at this point is peoples willingness to accept something that
> > is new in conjunction with Linux distributions and web hosting
> > companies being slow to adopt new packages.
>
> Yes that is to be expected, many people want someone else to pay the
> early adopter's costs. Nonetheless mod_wsgi seems like the right
> direction to move the python world.
>
> One confounding factor that may slow its adoption could be the need of
> running plain old CGI in an efficient way. I'm not sure how that fits
> into the WSGI picture.

Practically running CGI quickly is hard.  All of the modern batch of
frameworks contain too much code to do this; the startup cost of
loading all that code for each request is just too much.

For commodity servers that only support CGI scripts, and periodically
kill long-running requests, I had an idea for making WSGI applications
look like CGI scripts:
http://blog.ianbicking.org/2007/08/03/fast-cgi-that-isnt-fastcgi/ --
basically using the CGI script as a pipe to the application, with some
process management built in.

Of course, it still would need to be implemented.  I suspect it would
be a fairly simple task for someone familiar with C.

This isn't really a big deal for most professional web developers, who
can control their server environment, but lack of this style of
deployment does make it a lot harder for web application users to use
Python applications.

  Ian