[Web-SIG] Re: Regarding the WSGI draft

[Paul Moore]

"Phillip J. Eby" <pje at telecommunity.com> writes:

> First, users can experiment with other frameworks, especially if those 
> frameworks are lightweight.  This builds competitive pressure in the 
> direction of lightweight, easy-to-integrate frameworks.  So framework 
> developers begin to break their monolithic approaches down into smaller 
> pieces that operate on segments of WSGI.  For example, a session service 
> that you pass the incoming 'environ' and outgoing 'headers' to, in order 
> for it to read and set cookies.  (Notice that this *isn't* a WSGI-defined 
> or standardized service, just a service implemented *in terms of* WSGI.)

I think this starts to address the question I raised in my previous
posting, about "run anywhere" applications. If an application is
written to use WSGI-compliant services, it could run on any
WSGI-compliant server.

But doesn't this raise a complementary issue? With 10 applications
running, I have one server. But I also have 5 session handling
services, 8 authentication services, 3 error handling services, etc,
etc. Maybe that's where the pressure for "best of breed" services
comes from.

Small steps, I guess...

Paul.
-- 
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing
that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot
possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to
get at or repair. -- Douglas Adams