quetz-mod_python-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Dumpleton <grah...@dscpl.com.au>
Subject Re: Vote on whether to integrate server side include (SSI) support.
Date Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:03:36 GMT
Not seeing any negatives, I am going to go ahead and commit the SSI
stuff. Comments that this is just another way to skin a cat are true,
even if a small cat.  I guess the reason for doing it is to fill out
those basic features that can be filled out by using just what Apache

Anyway, I'll try and get around to writing one of my mini articles
about the feature and also use some of that for inclusion into the
mod_python documentation itself. Maybe from writing a mini article
it might become more apparent how its simplicity can be just as useful
as any other approach for getting small tasks down quickly.


On 11/03/2006, at 1:43 AM, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:

> I don't understand this enough to have an opinion on it, seems like 
> another way to skin a cat, but to really form an opinion would require 
> some thinking on my part at least (may be I'm getting thick with age).
> I think it'd be great if those who send in +1's (or -1's) would 
> explain why they think this is good, and even if it's not so useful, 
> then is it worth being supported and maintained in the future.
> Grisha
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jim Gallacher wrote:
>> +1
>> Graham Dumpleton wrote:
>>> I have had patches for adding server side include support into
>>> mod_python ready for a while now. See:
>>>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-104
>>> In short, it would add the ability to add Python code into files
>>> being served up through the INCLUDES output filter. More
>>> commonly this is known as server side include (SSI). For example:
>>> <!--#python exec=" from mod_python import apache import cgi import 
>>> sys parts = apache.import_module('parts') def _escape(object):     
>>> return cgi.escape(str(object)) "--> <html>   <body>     <pre>

>>> <!--#python eval="_escape(str(globals().keys()))"--> <!--#python 
>>> eval="_escape(str(locals().keys()))"--> <!--#python exec=" print >>

>>> filter for key in filter.req.subprocess_env:     print >> filter, 
>>> _escape((key, filter.req.subprocess_env[key])) "--> <!--#python 
>>> eval="parts.content()"-->     </pre>   </body> </html> One
could say 
>>> that there is an overlap between this and the
>>> mod_python.psp handler, but the SSI feature is a builtin feature of
>>> Apache and it make sense to support it. Using SSI, if one was mad
>>> enough, you could even have Python and Perl code appearing in the one
>>> file.
>>> Anyway, the point of this email is to get a decision on whether this
>>> major new feature should or should not be added into mod_python.
>>> Core developer votes obviously matter the most, but others are more
>>> than welcome to voice an opinion.
>>> So, is it a Yes or a No?
>>> Graham

View raw message