[Web-SIG] CGI in PEP 444

[Eric Larson]

At Tue, 4 Jan 2011 17:19:48 +0000 (UTC),
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 
> P.J. Eby <pje at ...> writes:
> > 
> > At 12:43 PM 1/4/2011 +0000, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > >Alice Bevan­McGregor <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.
> 
> Really? Isn't that the kind of thing for which wsgiref should be the preferred 
> choice?
> As for deployment, why would anyone recommend using CGI in production?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Antoine.
> 

It is important to recognize that "production" doesn't necessarily
have to be some ultra powerful server somewhere that is central to
some organization. A simple server running Apache with CGI is just as
valid a production environment as an EC2 cluster. This is especially
true when you are the only person using the application and
requirements are minimal. The point being that in terms of the
specification, it should be plausible a person could use a WSGI
application without heavy server requirements. Shared hosting is the
obvious example here but minimal virtual machines may also fit into
this category.


Eric Larson

> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/eric%40ionrock.org