Mod_python has been dead for so long now that its death has gone from a liability to a potential asset. After this much time not supporting its legacy, it hardly has any legacy left to support, and not having legacy baggage can be exploited as a significant advantage.
I hope that if the author wants to resurrect it, he'll consider creating a new mod_python focused exclusively on the new Python. Position it that way. Make it Python 3.4 or later with no support for anything earlier so that all effort can focus on creating the world's best support for the next generation of Python web apps.
>(Back in those days this is how programmers worked, there was no “agile” and “daily stand ups”, everyone understood that things take time. I miss those days very much)
Hear, Hear! As much as I think Agile is an improvement over more misused software development models, I still prefer working on my own time at my own pace the best.
Is there much demand still for a Python apache module? Not to disencourage gtrubetskoy, but we've extended our application server (Phusion Passenger) to support WSGI and were met with little enthousiasm from the community. It seems as though Python users are quite content with reverse proxy setups, or there's another contender we haven't heard of that's serving the community well.
I am certainly interested in how the Python community will react to the mod_python revival.
(It hasn't been long since we've added nodejs support, but that community has shown a lot more love already)
I think it's interesting that in your mind "WSGI" equates with Python support. In my opinion little enthusiasm has to do with how limited and boring WSGI is - I think you'd find much more enthused users if you offered something better than WSGI.
There is no compelling reason to switch to or use passenger. Only the enterprise version is feature-parity equivalent to mod_wsgi. Ofcourse mod_wgsi doesn't have an external daemon (the flying mode) but uWSGI has that and many other non-equated features ...
We already have a very good Python apache module in mod_wsgi, https://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/. It's pretty much the default for production Python web deployments.
I thought the WSGI support for passenger was neat, and I'm glad there's at least one option for Python deployment with little server configuration required, but I don't use it because I don't want to bugger around recompiling nginx :)
The "expose the internals of the webserver" model is much like the Lua support for Nginx in Openresty. The "is this an application server" question still comes up...
I sympathize with this story and it makes me feel sorry.
But I also feel sorry for all the people who have struggled to do normal things with mod_python, often just because they assumed it was the default due to its name, and did not know that it got left behind by the rest of the world. This is why people say "mod_python is dead," to save others the pointless struggle typically encountered while trying to do the typical things with mod_python. And it's not only the long period without maintenance or the weak documentation. The whole ecosystem just moved on. It's been many years.
The reason it is you against the world today is that you want everyone to drop WSGI to use mod_python. Maybe this was possible in 2003-2005 or so. But for a long time now, mod_python is just not a good alternative to WSGI and all the tools that use it, even if it is good in its own ways. Trying to replace WSGI with mod_python today doesn't make sense. Please give up the goal of replacing WSGI with mod_python and take a new direction!
I have been developing for the web since 2002, but I have only been doing Python for the last few years, the "mod_python is dead" phase. In fact with the first site that I launched in python, I was starting to setup a beta environment with mod_python when my boss told me not to use it. Looking forward to reading up on the new release.
I wrote a fairly large application (by academic standards) in mod_python, which I babied along until about two years ago when I converted it to plain cgi since the light traffic didn't justify the extra infrastructure.
The only thing I wanted was a simple means to pass around input that I didn't have to write by hand... much to the contrary of mod_python's intent.
I am glad Grisha is working on it again, though. I am always pleased to see labors of love for 20 years get sustained attention.
Hmmmm... not a mention of Graham Dumpleton, who seemed to be the force behind mod_python while I was using it (and mod_wsgi now). Maybe he took over when Grisha burned out?
Anyway, thank-you for your enormous contribution to Python on the web, Graham. And if it was his shoulders you stood on, my thanks to Grisha too.
[+] [-] SiVal|12 years ago|reply
I hope that if the author wants to resurrect it, he'll consider creating a new mod_python focused exclusively on the new Python. Position it that way. Make it Python 3.4 or later with no support for anything earlier so that all effort can focus on creating the world's best support for the next generation of Python web apps.
Just a thought.
[+] [-] kkmickos|12 years ago|reply
The project is already being worked on and support for Py3 is implemented. He's reaching out looking for people to help him test it.
[+] [-] Afforess|12 years ago|reply
Hear, Hear! As much as I think Agile is an improvement over more misused software development models, I still prefer working on my own time at my own pace the best.
Very excellent story.
[+] [-] arjn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emmelaich|12 years ago|reply
Measure your velocity to predict delivery times.
Not push yourself to hit required (i.e. hoped for) delivery.
[+] [-] tinco|12 years ago|reply
I am certainly interested in how the Python community will react to the mod_python revival.
(It hasn't been long since we've added nodejs support, but that community has shown a lot more love already)
[+] [-] gtrubetskoy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ionelm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laurencerowe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eevee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gdamjan1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itod|12 years ago|reply
Word.
[+] [-] justincormack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
But I also feel sorry for all the people who have struggled to do normal things with mod_python, often just because they assumed it was the default due to its name, and did not know that it got left behind by the rest of the world. This is why people say "mod_python is dead," to save others the pointless struggle typically encountered while trying to do the typical things with mod_python. And it's not only the long period without maintenance or the weak documentation. The whole ecosystem just moved on. It's been many years.
The reason it is you against the world today is that you want everyone to drop WSGI to use mod_python. Maybe this was possible in 2003-2005 or so. But for a long time now, mod_python is just not a good alternative to WSGI and all the tools that use it, even if it is good in its own ways. Trying to replace WSGI with mod_python today doesn't make sense. Please give up the goal of replacing WSGI with mod_python and take a new direction!
[+] [-] kiplinger|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjolk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forkandwait|12 years ago|reply
The only thing I wanted was a simple means to pass around input that I didn't have to write by hand... much to the contrary of mod_python's intent.
I am glad Grisha is working on it again, though. I am always pleased to see labors of love for 20 years get sustained attention.
[+] [-] foxylad|12 years ago|reply
Anyway, thank-you for your enormous contribution to Python on the web, Graham. And if it was his shoulders you stood on, my thanks to Grisha too.
[+] [-] mgkimsal|12 years ago|reply
And without support for reloading, that pretty much guarantees who'll be using it.
[+] [-] lennel|12 years ago|reply