Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Another competitor to mod_wsgi.
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  5 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Graham Dumpleton  
View profile  
 More options Apr 27 2009, 9:06 pm
From: Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:06:23 +1000
Local: Mon, Apr 27 2009 9:06 pm
Subject: Another competitor to mod_wsgi.
Here we have someone else who wants to compete with mod_wsgi in the
Apache space. It is called uWSGI.

  http://projects.unbit.it/uwsgi

I have yet to look through code too much yet.

FWIW, I have been looking through Phusion Passenger code of late and
their Apache module is a bit of a mess. Phusion Passenger chose the
wrong way of hooking into Apache request processing phases and as a
result it doesn't interoperate properly with some other Apache
modules. Rather than realise their mistake, that have just been adding
more hacks on top to try and get it to work properly with the other
Apache modules.

I wander what surprises I will find in the uWSGI code. Their use of
Python sub interpreters and multithreading appears to be flawed on
first glance.

Graham


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Hongli Lai  
View profile  
 More options Apr 28 2009, 7:25 am
From: Hongli Lai <hongli...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:25:51 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 28 2009 7:25 am
Subject: Re: Another competitor to mod_wsgi.
On Apr 28, 3:06 am, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> FWIW, I have been looking through Phusion Passenger code of late and
> their Apache module is a bit of a mess. Phusion Passenger chose the
> wrong way of hooking into Apache request processing phases and as a
> result it doesn't interoperate properly with some other Apache
> modules. Rather than realise their mistake, that have just been adding
> more hacks on top to try and get it to work properly with the other
> Apache modules.

I'm interested in why you think we're doing it wrong. Could you tell
me more? There's very little good Apache module documentation out
there and I'm not even aware of a different way to do the same things
that we're doing right now.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Graham Dumpleton  
View profile  
 More options Apr 28 2009, 8:09 am
From: Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:09:50 +1000
Local: Tues, Apr 28 2009 8:09 am
Subject: Re: [modwsgi] Re: Another competitor to mod_wsgi.
2009/4/28 Hongli Lai <hongli...@gmail.com>:

> On Apr 28, 3:06 am, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> FWIW, I have been looking through Phusion Passenger code of late and
>> their Apache module is a bit of a mess. Phusion Passenger chose the
>> wrong way of hooking into Apache request processing phases and as a
>> result it doesn't interoperate properly with some other Apache
>> modules. Rather than realise their mistake, that have just been adding
>> more hacks on top to try and get it to work properly with the other
>> Apache modules.

> I'm interested in why you think we're doing it wrong. Could you tell
> me more? There's very little good Apache module documentation out
> there and I'm not even aware of a different way to do the same things
> that we're doing right now.

For a good explanation of how Apache internals work see:

  http://www.fmc-modeling.org/category/projects/apache/amp/Apache_Model...

There are also books one can buy:

  http://www.amazon.com/Apache-Modules-Book-Application-Development/dp/...
  http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Apache-Modules-Perl-C/dp/156592567X/ref...

The source code for builtin Apache modules also serve as good examples.

Basic issue is that in the main Apache works based around having
actual files in the file system and mapping URLs to them. A lot of
functionality derives from that basic premise. When you start to move
away from that, things will start to fall apart if you still need to
have other Apache modules which work based on that assumption to
function properly.

So, although how you have done it can be made to work, I wouldn't view
it as the best way of doing it and a lot more fiddles would probably
be necessary. It is worthwhile mentioning that mod_python also avoids
the more natural file source based view and it also can be a PITA at
times because things like application mount points cannot be
calculated correctly and it breaks the Apache security model for
controlling where users may point the file that is the application
entry point.

Anyway, lets just say I wouldn't do it the way you have done it. But
then your perceived requirements may have been quite different and
thus why you chose the way you did rather than other options
available.

BTW, I note that there are a few incorrect statements on your web site
about how Apache works. I recently sent an email to the contact email
address for your site pointing out one of them, but didn't get any
response.

Graham


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Hongli Lai  
View profile  
 More options Apr 28 2009, 12:50 pm
From: Hongli Lai <hongli...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 28 2009 12:50 pm
Subject: Re: Another competitor to mod_wsgi.
On Apr 28, 2:09 pm, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> BTW, I note that there are a few incorrect statements on your web site
> about how Apache works. I recently sent an email to the contact email
> address for your site pointing out one of them, but didn't get any
> response.

Good thing you pointed this out. It was recognized as spam. I'll have
a look.

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Hongli Lai  
View profile  
 More options Apr 28 2009, 1:13 pm
From: Hongli Lai <hongli...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Apr 28 2009 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: Another competitor to mod_wsgi.
On Apr 28, 2:09 pm, Graham Dumpleton <graham.dumple...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I've read parts of those resources but it didn't seem to me that they
provided alternative solutions for our requirements.

One of our requirements is that things must be as simple as possible,
even for people who don't understand Apache. "Magical", if you will.
mod_wsgi requires one to specify "WSGIScriptAlias" and "SetHandler",
but this is already too complicated in our opinion. Much of the
perceived workaround code is to implement this "magic".


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »