Michael Watkins wrote:
> * Sells, Fred wrote [2006-10-20 09:50:00 -0400]:
>
>> I had tried Quixote about 2 years ago and liked it, but never got the chance
>> to use it in production.  Please forgive my lack of tact, but what I need to
>> know is...
>>
>> Is Quixote a viable solution in the Ajax environment?
>
> Sure. AJAX is just http, with Javascript on the client, as you know.
>
>> Is mod_python itself a viable solution with Quixote, I've just started using
>> it.  Am intimidated by alternatives that require installing and
>> administering another server (SCGI?) when we have a VERY SMALL IT group.
>
> I think you should consider looking at SCGI. It really isn't that difficult
> to work with, and there are some advantages to dropping mod_python. If I
> recall correctly mod_python has dreadful, or no, support for Unicode. That
> may or may not be an issue for you, but it only takes on funny character to
> run an ascii-limited web developer's day ;-)

Depends on what you mean by "support".  I've had no problem serving up
Unicode pages through mod_python.  Of course, you have to send the pages
as plain strings *anyway* and it's not up to the server to interpret
those bytes.  The only problems I've run into serving Unicode through
mod_python are Python related oddities with decoding into the "default
charset".  But since you should be handling Unicode conversion at the
application boundaries anyway, this really shouldn't be an issue.

I've had few problems with mod_python, but SCGI is better supported by
Quixote.  Although I've moved on to other things, I enjoyed using
Quixote and definitely consider it a top-notch Python web framework
(although I wish the developers showed more enthusiasm for supporting WSGI).

--Shahms