mod_wsgi、mod_python 还是只是 cgi？
我一直在使用我自己的网络服务器（Apache+Ubuntu）和Python。据我所知，有 3(?) 个主要方法可以做到这一点：
- Apache 配置为将 .py 作为 cgi 处理
- Apache 配置为使用现在已经过时的 mod_python (?)
- Apache 配置为使用 mod_wsgi
我记得读过 Django 更喜欢 mod_wsgi ，而且我对学习 Django 有点兴趣（我听说他们的官方教程相当优秀）。
什么是“推荐”设置？我认为确实没有理由再使用 mod_python，但是将 .py 作为 cgi 和 mod_wsgi 处理之间有什么区别？是否有可能同时运行它们（你愿意吗？），或者这只是一个荒谬的想法，我应该停止思考如此疯狂的事情？
我想我真的只是在寻找关于 Apache+Python 的入门读物（链接也很好）——到目前为止我所遇到的都没有提供太多信息——它们主要只是操作方法。
I've been playing around with my own webserver (Apache+Ubuntu) and python. From what I've seen there are 3(?) main ways of doing this:
- Apache configured to handle .py as cgi
- Apache configured to use mod_python that is now outdated(?)
- Apache configured to use mod_wsgi
I recall reading that Django prefers mod_wsgi, and I'm kinda interested in learning Django (I've heard their official tutorial is rather excellent).
What is the 'recommended' setup? I presume there's really no reason to use mod_python anymore, but what are the differences between handling .py as cgi, and mod_wsgi? Is it possible to run them in tandem (and would you want to?), or is that just a ridiculous idea and I should stop thinking such crazy things?
I guess really I'm just looking for a primer on Apache+Python (links are also good) - nothing I've come across so far has been terribly informative - they were mainly just how-to's.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（4）
mod_python 已经死了，所以使用 mod_python 可能不是一个新项目的好主意。就我个人而言，我更喜欢使用 mod_wsgi 而不是 CGI（或 FastCGI）。它的设置非常简单，而且效率更高。
mod_python is dead, so using mod_python probably isn't a good idea for new projects. Personally, I prefer to use mod_wsgi over CGI (or FastCGI). It's dead-simple to set up, and much more efficient.
不要使用 CGI。这是低效的。为每个请求生成一个新进程。不，谢谢
不要花太多时间在 mod_python 上
使用 mod_wsgi。
如果您想在没有框架的情况下编写类似 CGI 的内容，请无论如何使用 mod_wsgi。 WSGI 标准 (PEP 333) 对于轻松创建 Web 应用程序至关重要、可互换、可重复使用、即插即用的方式。
Don't use CGI. It's inefficient. Spawning a new process for each request. No thanks
Dont't spend much time with mod_python
Use mod_wsgi.
If you want to write CGI-like stuff without a framework, use mod_wsgi anyway. The WSGI standard (PEP 333) is essential for creating web applications in an easy, interchangeable, reusable, plug-and-playable way.
我也会选择 mod_wsgi 。
如果您想更深入地了解这个问题，请看一下：
好东西！
I would go with mod_wsgi too.
If you want a deeper understanding about the question, have a look at this:
Good stuff!
Mod_Python
mod_python 还活得很好。请参阅此处：http://modpython.org/。此外，这里是最新版本 3.5.0 的文档，支持 Python 3： http://modpython.org/ live/current/modpython.pdf。目前我正在使用它。
Mod_WSGI
mod_wsgi 认为自己不是使用准系统，而是使用框架，例如 Flask。
Mod_Python
mod_python is alive and well. See here: http://modpython.org/. Furthermore, here's the documentation for the latest release, 3.5.0, with support for Python 3: http://modpython.org/live/current/modpython.pdf. Currently I use it.
Mod_WSGI
mod_wsgi thinks of itself as not to be used barebones, but with a framework, such as Flask.