Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web applications.
Chang
Chang
-
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 23:18, Andrew James wrote:[color=blue]
> Chang,
> I guess it depends whether you're using Python in a CGI or within
> mod_python. Could you give us a little more information, or check the
> mod_python documentation?[/color]
If it turns out that mod_python can't handle it, perhaps FCGI / SCGI
might be worth examining, too...
--
Craig Ringer
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
> Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web[color=blue]
> applications.[/color]
Are you talking about mod_python?
If so, then yes. But note that Apache threads entering the python
interpreter (via mod_python) will be serialized on the GIL.
--
damjan
Comment
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
Damjan wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web
>>application s.[/color]
>
>
> Are you talking about mod_python?
> If so, then yes. But note that Apache threads entering the python
> interpreter (via mod_python) will be serialized on the GIL.
>
>[/color]
This is true, but it doesn't tell the whoel story: mod_python has taken
care to make it possible to configure multiple interpreters - on a
per-directory basis if necessary. Obviously they all share the pure
code, but if I undestand correctly each has its own data space, and
hence its own GIL.
regards
Steve
--
Holden Web LLC +1 800 494 3119
Comment
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
Damjan <gdamjan@gmail. com> wrote in message news:<306sikF2s ueanU1@uni-berlin.de>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web
> > applications.[/color]
>
> Are you talking about mod_python?
> If so, then yes. But note that Apache threads entering the python
> interpreter (via mod_python) will be serialized on the GIL.[/color]
Yes, use mod_python. I plan to use Python to replace PHP and other
languages. The low efficient CGI will be replaced by embedded Python
program. Apache 2.0 is faviority becuase the threads are must have
features.
Comment
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
changli_to@hotm ail.com (Chang LI) wrote in message news:<89cc6e1f. 0411190632.2976 b3e1@posting.go ogle.com>...[color=blue]
> Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web applications.[/color]
Yes, but the latest version of mod_python (3.1.3) has a couple of bugs
in it in relation to threads which can cause problems when using a
threaded MPM with Apache. No indication has been given as to when
they will be fixed so you should patch the bugs yourself for now.
You can find some details and the patches at:
There is a discussion on the mod_python mailing list archives at:
Look for the thread starting with "Udate python modules without restarting Apache".
It is this discussion which lead to the uncovering of the bugs.
Comment
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
changli_to@hotm ail.com (Chang LI) wrote:
[color=blue]
>Damjan <gdamjan@gmail. com> wrote in message news:<306sikF2s ueanU1@uni-berlin.de>...[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web
>> > applications.[/color]
>>
>> Are you talking about mod_python?
>> If so, then yes. But note that Apache threads entering the python
>> interpreter (via mod_python) will be serialized on the GIL.[/color]
>
>Yes, use mod_python. I plan to use Python to replace PHP and other
>languages. The low efficient CGI will be replaced by embedded Python
>program. Apache 2.0 is faviority becuase the threads are must have
>features.[/color]
I would like to point out yet again that CGI isn't as bad as many people
make it out to be. Unless you know you need to handle thousands of
requests per minute, the overhead of creating a process and firing up the
interpreter is not significant.
CGI is certainly an easier debug environment than mod_python or any of the
long-running-process solutions.
--
- Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Comment
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.com> wrote in message news:<S_xnd.130 0$QR.188@lakere ad01>...[color=blue]
> Damjan wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web
> >>application s.[/color]
> >
> >
> > Are you talking about mod_python?
> > If so, then yes. But note that Apache threads entering the python
> > interpreter (via mod_python) will be serialized on the GIL.
> >
> >[/color]
> This is true, but it doesn't tell the whoel story: mod_python has taken
> care to make it possible to configure multiple interpreters - on a
> per-directory basis if necessary. Obviously they all share the pure
> code, but if I undestand correctly each has its own data space, and
> hence its own GIL.[/color]
There is actually a possible bug in PythonInterpPer Directory directive
which applies even if threading isn't being used. Specifically, mod_python
doesn't calculate the interpreter name correctly and although access to a
directory by name and something in it should logically resolve to the
same interpreter name it doesn't. More information can be found at:
Overall, I am not sure that PythonInterpPer Directory is a good idea, but
then it probably was created to workaround the short comings of the
module importing system in mod_python which makes it impossible in
mod_python.publ isher to have an index.py file in separate directories
within the context of the one interpreter. It wouldn't take much effort to
fix this limitation in the module importing system, but there doesn't seem
to be much interest in doing so.
Comment
-
Re: Python with Apache 2.0
Graham Dumpleton wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.com> wrote in message news:<S_xnd.130 0$QR.188@lakere ad01>...
>[color=green]
>>Damjan wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>Does python support threads safely along with Apache 2.0 in web
>>>>application s.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you talking about mod_python?
>>>If so, then yes. But note that Apache threads entering the python
>>>interprete r (via mod_python) will be serialized on the GIL.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>>This is true, but it doesn't tell the whoel story: mod_python has taken
>>care to make it possible to configure multiple interpreters - on a
>>per-directory basis if necessary. Obviously they all share the pure
>>code, but if I undestand correctly each has its own data space, and
>>hence its own GIL.[/color]
>
>
> There is actually a possible bug in PythonInterpPer Directory directive
> which applies even if threading isn't being used. Specifically, mod_python
> doesn't calculate the interpreter name correctly and although access to a
> directory by name and something in it should logically resolve to the
> same interpreter name it doesn't. More information can be found at:
>
> http://www.modpython.org/pipermail/m...er/016788.html
>
> Overall, I am not sure that PythonInterpPer Directory is a good idea, but
> then it probably was created to workaround the short comings of the
> module importing system in mod_python which makes it impossible in
> mod_python.publ isher to have an index.py file in separate directories
> within the context of the one interpreter. It wouldn't take much effort to
> fix this limitation in the module importing system, but there doesn't seem
> to be much interest in doing so.[/color]
Thank a lot for the additional information. I agree that the namespace
confusion is less than ideal in mod_python.
regards
STeve
--
Holden Web LLC +1 800 494 3119
Comment
Comment