Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.redatomik.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5518C823.5020004@oddbird.net>
References: <mf9hu0$jpu$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.313.1427656270.10327.python-list@python.org> <55185E5D.5080604@animats.com> <mf9uou$8k0$1@dont-email.me> <85pp7r4dj8.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <5518C342.9010504@gmail.com> <5518C823.5020004@oddbird.net>
From: INADA Naoki <songofacandy@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 13:45:23 +0900
Subject: Re: Python 3 lack of support for fcgi/wsgi.
To: Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net>
Cc: "python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.330.1427690751.10327.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 53
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:88314

I agree with you.

Web programmers should use maintained libraries.
In web world, most common libraries maintained are support Python 3.

I (maintainer of PyMySQL and mysqlclient) uses Python 3 for daily job,
and use Python 2 only for test my libraries.


On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Carl Meyer <carl@oddbird.net> wrote:
> On 03/29/2015 09:30 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> What does this have to do with Python itself?  I'm not completely sure,
>> but maybe it's about the Python community.  What's the way forward?  I
>> have no idea.  At the very least John is frustrated by the community's
>> lack of apparent interest in fixing problems in the greater python
>> ecosystem when it comes to Python 3.
>
> I think one could easily draw far too broad a conclusion from John's
> report here. The title of the thread says "lack of support for
> fcgi/wsgi", but AFAICT the content of the report, and the thread, is
> entirely about FCGI. In my experience, WSGI under Python 3 works very
> well these days, and all of the popular WSGI servers (gunicorn,
> mod_wsgi, uwsgi, waitress, ...) run just fine under Python 3. I've
> deployed several Django applications into production on Python 3 (using
> WSGI) with no issues.
>
> FastCGI is a different story. I do some Django support on #django and on
> django-users, and I see very few people deploying with FastCGI anymore;
> almost everyone uses WSGI (and when we see someone using FastCGI, we
> encourage them to switch to WSGI). In fact, the FastCGI support in
> Django itself is deprecated and will be removed in Django 1.9. So I am
> not at all surprised to hear that the Python FastCGI libraries are
> relatively poorly maintained.
>
> And it is true and unsurprising that when a particular library is no
> longer maintained, it will probably be in better shape on Python 2 than
> on Python 3, because Python 2 is older.
>
> So when it comes to "the community's interest in fixing problems" or
> John's assertion that "nobody uses this stuff," in both cases I think
> it's far more about FastCGI vs WSGI than it's about Python 2 vs 3.
>
> Carl
>
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>



-- 
INADA Naoki  <songofacandy@gmail.com>