http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4964 <pre>Biggest Fake Conference in Computer Science We are researchers from different parts of the world and conducted a study on the world’s biggest bogus computer science conference WORLDCOMP http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1 organized by Prof. Hamid Arabnia from University of Georgia, USA. We submitted a fake paper to WORLDCOMP 2011 and again (the same paper with a modified title) to WORLDCOMP 2012. This paper had numerous fundamental mistakes. Sample statements from that paper include: (1). Binary logic is fuzzy logic and vice versa (2). Pascal developed fuzzy logic (3). Object oriented languages do not exhibit any polymorphism or inheritance (4). TCP and IP are synonyms and are part of OSI model (5). Distributed systems deal with only one computer (6). Laptop is an example for a super computer (7). Operating system is an example for computer hardware Also, our paper did not express any conceptual meaning. However, it was accepted both the times without any modifications (and without any r</pre> eliswilson-revL73yDgGBWk0Htik3J/w< at >public.gmane.org 2013-04-30T22:57:23 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4950 <pre>Hi! A quick mail to let you know that we will have a sprint[1] about WebTest[2] at Bearstech, Paris, end of February. Register yourself on the wiki page[2] if you want to join us! You can add your own topic if you need some features. This will be discussed during the sprint. Feel free to ask any questions. Also I can try to help you find a couch/room for your visit if needed. I know that's the event is in a month. And I'm sorry that, for some reasons, I have to announce it that late. Hope you'll be able to come though! Happy hacking! Regards, -- Gael [1] http://bearstech.com/actualites/webtest-paris-sprint [2] http://webtest.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ [3] https://github.com/Pylons/webtest/wiki/ParisSprint2013 _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org </pre> Gael Pasgrimaud 2013-01-14T11:44:39 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4949 <pre>From my blog post: http://rpatterson.net/software/wsgi-apps-on-iis The `iiswsgi`_ module implements a FastCGI to `WSGI`_ gateway that is compatible with `IIS`_'s variation of the `FastCGI protocol`_. It also provides `distutils`_ commands for building, distributing and installing `Microsoft Web Deploy`_ (MSDeploy) packages through the `Web Platform Installer`_ (WebPI). The goals of the code in `iiswsgi`_ are to do the following for deploying WSGI apps on IIS: * make it open source as far as possible, right up to IIS * be Pythonic as far as possible, right up to the MSDeploy packaging * re-use our existing tool-chain for distributing packages * share the maintenance burden for a WSGI on Windows story across the community For the `Plone`_ project, it's always been simultaneously a necessity that we support a Windows deployment story and one of our biggest pain points. The Windows installers have always been very different from the other installers. They have had different layouts from our user and dev</pre> Ross Patterson 2012-10-30T18:13:07 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4946 <pre> I was at pyconuk over the weekend and came away from that all refreshed and wanting to hack. That combined with the recent release of Python 3.3 had me deciding it was time to start porting TiddlyWeb[1] to Python3. I'm having progress along some lines and a bit of a mess along others. The major holdback right now are dependencies which are not yet ported, which I'd like to port as well, but proving hard to port because they have test dependencies which themselves are not yet ported. A medium sized issue is related to how WSGI is supposed to behave in Python3. TiddlyWeb is its own framework and doesn't use webob or werkzeug, etc. It does dispatch with selector, but other than that processes handling headers and request body as it gets them from the server. For tests it uses wsgi-intercept[2] to simulate a web server. I've volunteered to port that (having already done some minor work on it in the past) so need to get clear and the disposition of bytes or strings in headers and bodies of both requests and re</pre> chris.dent-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org 2012-10-01T17:07:40 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4944 <pre>Hello! Here's a progress update on "sarge", the deployment tool. Turns out I was trying to address too many concerns at once, so I focussed on the core problem: managing the lifecycle of a version of the application. http://mgax.github.com/sarge/ Sarge acts as container for "instances". An instance can be *created*, then you install code and configure stuff; you can then *start* and *stop* it, and when a new version is ready, *destroy* the old one. There's also a *run* command to bring up a REPL or execute custom commands. Some documentation exists: http://mgax.github.com/sarge/ Instances are independent, so you can run them simultaneously; this allows for different instances for different jobs (web, worker, cron script) and also things like rolling back a failed deployment or zero-downtime upgrade. I'm using this, for a couple of projects, in production, today. There's an example fabfile in the repo (deploy/complex_fabfile.py), but it's way more complex than it should be. Much of that logic should prob</pre> Alex Morega 2012-09-10T16:27:00 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4935 <pre>Hi list, I am running a site with django + uwsgi, I have few questions about how WSGI works. 1. Is db connection open/close handled by Django? If it's open/closed per request, can we make a connection pool in wsgi level, then multiple django views can share it? 2. As a general design consideration, can we execute some task *after* the response has returned to client? I have some heavy data processing need to be done after return HttpResponse() in django, the standard way to do this seems like Celery or other task queue with a broker. It's just too heavyweight. Is it possible to do some simple background task in WSGI directly? Thanks in advance! _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org </pre> est 2012-07-13T02:50:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4934 <pre>Hi folks, I've been tinkering with a tool for hosting web applications. It aims to make deployment easier by automating configuration on the server: starting up processes, linking them to databases, configuring the front-end web server, etc. Many ideas are borrowed from Ian Bicking's proposal from April 2011[1]. http://alex-morega.github.com/Sarge/ On the server, Sarge reads a "hosting" configuration file for each "deployment". This describes resources available to the application (e.g. database), along with a domain name, public HTTP port, etc. The "guest" application is deployed with its own configuration file that provides a urlmap, service requirements, entry points. These configuration files are still underspecified; apppkg[2] may be a good model for them. Processes are started with supervisor[3], and nginx is assumed as http server. For the application, services (e.g. database access) will be provided via plugins, but the plugin API is not very useful yet. The code is thoroughly covered in unit te</pre> Alex Morega 2012-06-20T20:09:05 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4930 <pre>I'm using Paste script to configure a wsgiref server on Windows. And I'm seeing some weird stuff. On Safari, every request gets almost exactly 1 second of latency tacked on (the amount listed in the network diagnostics pane varies per request: 1.03s, 1.09s, 1.08s, 1.12s...). Every request. Even when the actual response takes practically no time (e.g. a 304), the connection latency is huge. On Chrome, the latency is smaller (around 300ms) and not on every request. Hovering over a request with the latency in Chrome's network pane shows the following information: DNS Lookup: 1ms Connecting: 302ms Sending : 0 Waiting : 15ms Receiving : 27ms Firefox also shows a large (1s) "connecting" time for some requests and no delay on other requests in the Firebug net pane. The only reason page load is barely tolerable is because at least with threading some of the delays are in parallel, but it's still slow. I have no idea what's going on here. Any ideas? Thanks, Matt ___________________</pre> Matt Chaput 2012-06-07T21:09:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4929 <pre>Hello! There was a discussion here, about an year ago, about ways to deploy WSGI applications to servers. What is the status? What tools are out there, being currently developed, other than Buildout, Fabric and Silver Lining? Cheers, </pre> Alex Morega 2012-06-07T08:08:24 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4919 <pre>Hey I am doing this experimentation where the WGSI server is not started with an host/port or a unix socket, but rather a FD value, corresponding to a socket already bound by the parent process. The server would then just accept new connection on the FD, using socket.fromfd() to get a socket object back, and forget about all the binding work. Here's a prototype based on wsgiref : https://github.com/tarekziade/chaussette The goal I have is to be able to just spawn web workers using subprocess and take care myself of the process management part. I wrote a blog post on my motivations here : http://blog.ziade.org/2012/06/12/shared-sockets-in-circus if you want more background. Anyways, the idea I wanted to bring here was the following: most web servers out there support regular host/port or Unix Socket, which are usually the "unix:" prefix followed by a path on the system. What if web servers had these two standards *and* a new one which would be a "fd:" prefix. For instance, we would start serv</pre> Tarek Ziadé 2012-06-05T09:30:37 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4909 <pre>Recently I was enquiring about the possibility to implement websocket as a WSGI middleware, but I learned that to do that the middleware would need access to the underlying socket. Has there been any thought about this? A wsgi addendum perhaps? </pre> Damjan 2012-05-20T12:12:12 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4904 <pre>Hi, It really bugs me to use Mailman workflow for discussions in 2012. Why a WEB-SIG uses non-web technology for communicating anyway? Is the web still unsuitable technology itself for communication? What do you think about entry barrier for new people to this list? Do you know that you can't send a message without subscribing? Do you know that you actually have to resend the message after you've been subscribed? ---[cut]--- You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at web-sig-owner-+ZN9ApsXKcG4UlQgPVntAg&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org ---[cut]--- You can't just confirm it like in GMane or enter captch - you have to subscribe, confirm subscription, and resend, then turn off delivery or setup delete filter. I read lists from the web when I have time. GMane could be a solution, but it doesn't up updated threads, so you can't see what's going on with long term discussions </pre> anatoly techtonik 2012-05-19T11:32:27 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4880 <pre>Moving here as suggested by Terry Reedy as this list may be more interested than -ideas (note: some feedback already used to revise the original proposal, and a very basic patch — with no tests — is provided for the current CPython default branch) Currently, calling wsgiref.simple_server simply mounts the (bundled) demo app. I think that's a bit of a lost opportunity: the community seems to have mostly standardized on a wsgi script providing an application callable in its global namespace (though details may differ, mod_wsgi does not care for the script's name and mandates an `application` callable while e.g. gunicorn wants a Python module and the callable name must be configured), and it would be nice if simple_server could take such a script and mount the application provided: * This would allow testing that the script has no error without having to go through mounting it in e.g. mod_wsgi * It would make trivial/test applications (e.g. dynamic responders to local JS) simpler to bootstrap as ther</pre> Masklinn 2012-03-29T10:02:46 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4843 <pre>Hello I need to be able to call a function when the web application shuts down (SIGTERM/SIGINT) -- the use case is to stop a background thread. I am currently using signals because it seems to be the most clean way to do this. atexit is much trickier since you don't know when it's going to get called and you might try to call objects that were garbage collected unless you hack something to keep references alive. But signals are also tricky beasts since you may compete with other code that are listening to them. For instance mod_wsgi don't like apps that have signal handlers. Anyways, the bottom line is that the cleanest way to do this -- as per Chris McDonough idea, would be to introduce in the WSGI protocol a "shutdown" function the servers would be obligated to call before exiting. I am not sure yet about its arguments, maybe a signum + frame or simply an exit code... But how do you like the idea ? That would solve for me the problem of having to deal differently here depending on if I am called wit</pre> Tarek Ziadé 2012-02-20T16:03:49 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4842 <pre>Perrenial topic, it seems, from the archives. As far as I can tell from PEP 3333, every WSGI application that wants to run on both Python 2 and Python 3 and which uses PATH_INFO will need to define a helper function something like this: """ import sys def decode_path_info(environ, encoding='utf-8'): PY3 = sys.version_info[0] == 3 path_info = environ['PATH_INFO'] if PY3: return path_info.encode('latin-1').decode(encoding) else: return path_info.decode(encoding) """ Is there a more elegant way to handle this? - C _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org </pre> Chris McDonough 2012-01-03T10:52:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4840 <pre>Hello everyone! What is SERVER_PORT supposed to be set to if the WSGI server is only bound to a Unix socket? Some major Web servers (Gunicorn, CherryPy) set it to the empty string. Intuitively I'd rather not set it at all. What do you guys recommend? btw, www.wsgi.org != wsgi.org. That's very confusing. Jonas _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org </pre> Jonas H. 2012-01-02T14:59:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4838 <pre>Does anyone know of a pure-Python WSGI server that: - Is distributed indepdently from a web framework or larger whole. - Runs on UNIX and Windows. - Runs on both Python 2 and Python 3. - Has good test coverage. - Is useful in production. (I sent this already to the Pylons-discuss maillist and got some good responses, so not ignoring those, just want to ask a wider audience) Thanks! - C _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org </pre> Chris McDonough 2011-12-27T00:01:26 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4817 <pre>Sorry about the confusion. wsgi.org was owned by me for the last couple of years. Recently, we've moved ownership over to DZUG e.V. (German Zope User Group) which is the only legal offical python related entity in Germany at the moment. Obviously, I should have announced that here on this list, but didn't. The hosting was moved to GoCept which is a company owned by Christian Theune, who's also very active in the Python community. I guess that moving the content over to github is an excelent idea. Cheers, Stephan _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A&lt; at &gt;public.gmane.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/gcpw-web-sig%40m.gmane.org </pre> Stephan Diehl 2011-08-19T07:51:41 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4813 <pre>Who owns and manages www.wsgi.org wiki? The amount of spam the wiki gets now is becoming rediculous. If we care about the wiki, it is time to take the content in it and dump it in github as a project which can then be loaded up to Read The Docs, with www.wsgi.org directing to that. In the mean time, can anyone else help clean up the spam. I am usually the only one who does it, but this time there is too much and becomes a waste of my time. I only have so many phone meetings where I can secretly be cleaning up the spam at the same time. So, many hands make light work. :-) Overall I reckon moving to github and Read The Docs may also encourage greater participation as far as putting some useful content in it. Personally I find wikis a pain for that sort of content and so can't be bothered to work on the actual content. If it was on guthub and Read The Docs I am more likely myself to help build out the content with actual decent useful content, moving some of the stuff I have blogged about or put elsewhere t</pre> Graham Dumpleton 2011-08-18T21:14:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4812 <pre>I've been reading the articles on dirtsimple.org about WSGI-Lite, and am really excited about what I'm reading. I got to the "Where All This is Going" section of "WSGI, Web Frameworks, and Requests: Explicit or Implicit" and it really clicked. Being able to specify a decorator that would tell the "framework" (i.e. WSGI-Lite) where to get its parameters opens all kinds of possibilities, while moving sections of "controller" code into smaller, more-easily-testable, units of code. It also makes things more explicit, while not adding a lot of complexity or boilerplate. I look forward to seeing how this develops, and if I can, contribute to the process! j </pre> Joshua J. Kugler 2011-08-09T00:14:56 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.web/4808 <pre>I realize this is probably a pretty silly question, but I was wondering if anyone can provide any insight. I've been trying to use the multiprocessing [1] in a WSGI environment and have observed what appears to be deadlock behavior under mod_wsgi+django and web.py. I created a minimal example web.py to demonstrate [2]. If you have web.py available you should be able to run that script and then point your browser at: http://localhost:8080/ and then watch your browser hang when you visit: http://locahost:8080/?multiprocessing=1 Going forward I'm most likely going to move this functionality to an asynchronous queue (celery, etc) but I was wondering if multiprocessing + WSGI was generally known to be something to avoid, or if it was even forbidden somehow. Any assistance you can provide would be welcome. //Ed [1] http://docs.python.org/library/multiprocessing.html [2] https://gist.github.com/951570 _______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG-+ZN9ApsXKcEdnm+yROfE0A</pre> Ed Summers 2011-05-02T13:05:22 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.comp.python.web