Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.

[John Nagle]

On 3/29/2015 1:19 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> On 3/29/2015 12:11 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> John Nagle <nagle at animats.com> writes:
>>
>>> The Python 3 documentation at
>>> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/webservers.html
>>>
>>> recommends "flup"
>>
>> I disagree. In a section where it describes FastCGI, it presents a tiny
>> example as a way to test the packages installed. The example happens to
>> use ‘flup’.
>>
>> That's quite different from a recommendation.
>>
>>> I get the feeling, again, that nobody actually uses this stuff.
> 
> So do others. See "http://www.slideshare.net/mitsuhiko/wsgi-on-python-3"
> 
> "A talk about the current state of WSGI on Python 3. Warning:
> depressing. But it does not have to stay that way"
> 
> "wsgiref on Python 3 is just broken."
> 
> "Python 3 that is supposed to make unicode easier is causing a lot more
> problems than unicode environments on Python 2"
> 
> "The Python 3 stdlib is currently incredible broken but because there
> are so few users, these bugs stay under the radar."
> 
> That was written in 2010.  Most of that stuff is still broken.
> Here's his detailed critique:
> 
> http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2010/5/25/wsgi-on-python-3/
> 
>> You have found yet another poorly-maintained package which is not at all
>> the responsibility of Python 3.
>> Why are you discussing it as though Python 3 is at fault?
> 
>    That's a denial problem.  Uncritical fanboys are part of the problem,
> not part of the solution.
> 
>    Practical problems: the version of "flup" on PyPi is so out of date
> as to be useless.  The original author abandoned the software.  There
> are at least six forks of "flup" on Github:
> 
> https://github.com/Pyha/flup-py3.3
> https://github.com/Janno/flup-py3.3
> https://github.com/pquentin/flup-py3
> https://github.com/SmartReceipt/flup-server
> https://github.com/dnephin/TreeOrg/tree/master/app-root/flup
> https://github.com/noxan/flup
> 
> The first three look reasonably promising; the last three look
> abandoned.  But why are there so many, and what are the
> differences between the first three?   Probably nobody
> was able to fix all the Python 3 related problems documented by
> Ronacher in 2010.  None of the versions have much usage.  Nobody
> thought their version was good enough to push it to Pypi.
> 
> All those people had to struggle to try to get a basic capability for
> web development using Python to work. To use WSGI with Python 3, you
> need to do a lot of work.  Or stay with Python 2.
> 
> Python 3 still isn't ready for prime time.
> 
> 				John Nagle
>