Thursday, May 27, 2010

The mod_python project soon to be officially dead.

The mod_python project last had a release February 2007. There has more or less been no developer activity since. Under the rules of the Apache Software Foundation if a project becomes inactive then it can be moved into what is called the Apache Attic. Come the next meeting of the ASF board a proposed resolution will be put up to dissolve the Quetzalcoatl project management committee and projects which it overseas, namely mod_python. Thus, in some respect one can say that mod_python will be officially dead.

What will this really mean. Well, no more development on mod_python, but then that isn't happening now. Linux distributions will likely still carry the package, but they will need to apply any changes themselves to ensure that it continues to work for newer versions of Apache. This actually is already being done as a bug in mod_python was exposed by some changes to the Apache runtime library and since no mod_python release has been made since then, only option was for distributions to patch it themselves.

I suspect though that this patching by distributions will only extend to Apache 2.2.X as Apache 2.4 changes the internal APIs enough that getting mod_python to compile will need more significant changes than a minor patch. You also will never see a version of mod_python for Python 3.X as that is going to require a radical rewrite.

For platforms like MacOS X where the last release of mod_python doesn't build properly, the only option will be to checkout mod_python source code from the subversion repository as that incorporates a fix for those issues, although it has since been shown to not be a complete fix and so you may still have some problems. In other words, the subversion repository will still exist, but it will be made read only and the location may potentially move.

What options exist if you want to move away from mod_python?

If you are only using mod_python as a means of hosting within Apache a distinct Python web framework or application and it supports the WSGI interface, then the obvious candidate is to move to mod_wsgi instead.

If you are using mod_python to implement custom access, authentication or authorization handlers, then you may also be able to get away with using mod_wsgi. You may have to make compromises though as mod_wsgi doesn't currently allow you to write full blown Apache style handlers and instead only implements the Apache authentication and authorization provider interfaces. This actually makes it easier to do most things, but you loose the ability to do some more complicated stuff which depends on using different error status values or custom error pages. You can partly get away with using ErrorDocument directive to return custom error pages, but not always.

Although proper support for Apache style handlers could be added to mod_wsgi, and a lot of work has been done in that direction already through the implementation of SWIG bindings for Apache, whether the remaining work to allow the actual hooking of handlers into mod_wsgi will be done will really depend on interest in it. Up till now, there hasn't been sufficient interest to justify doing the final bit of work and there has actually been some resistance put up to the idea of extending mod_wsgi too far beyond the core goal of providing WSGI hosting.

If you are not using the basic handler mechanisms of mod_python and are instead using the CGI handler, the publisher handler or PSP handler, then there aren't really any options at this point except for rewriting your application on top of a WSGI framework. If you have to do such a rewrite, but like the low level that one works at when using mod_python, then would strongly recommend you perhaps look at Werkzeug and Flask.

If you are using mod_python input or output filters there simply isn't any replacement. Frankly though I always thought that writing input or output filters in mod_python was a really bad idea. Yeah it may work, but it wouldn't exactly be efficient. You would be much better writing a proper Apache module in C to do what is required, certainly if performance is an issue.

Finally, the ability to use Python code with Apache server side include mechanism also has no real equivalent. But then, not sure anyone ever actually used that feature anyway. Something similar could possibly be implemented in mod_wsgi but not sure there would really be a point. If you are only using ability to include Python code, you would be much better off using a proper templating system that works with a WSGI framework.

So, the writing is on the wall so to speak and if you are using mod_python, you really should be starting to plan how to move away from it as eventually it will likely not be an option you can use if you want to keep up to date with Apache and/or Python.

Could it yet be saved by a white knight. Well, yes it could as the Apache Attic does allow projects to be resurrected or forked with it then being maintained outside of the ASF. If someone does do the latter though, you would need to be mindful of the name as the ASF in some respects has rights over the mod_python name. As such, you would likely need to rename the project when you take it over.

If you fork mod_python, you would also want to think about capturing all the details of the significant number of still open bug reports for mod_python in its issue tracker, as am not sure what will happen to that and whether it will be made read only or whether it will be completely closed down.

Anyway, will be interesting times ahead. I should point out though that according to Google trends (currently borked), searches on WSGI finally overtook those for mod_python recently. Searches for mod_wsgi haven't yet, but not far off occuring. It is also the common belief that WSGI is the way to go for Python web applications now, so perhaps it is simply time to just move on from mod_python. If we could only just get newbies, who even now keep using mod_python even though better options exist, to understand this, then maybe it can finally be left to die in peace.

11 comments:

Brandon Craig Rhodes said...

Thanks for providing such a complete update on a historically very important Python effort, Graham! Many of us first used Python with the web through experiments with mod_python, and I am glad that the Apache Foundation provides a process for a project retiring, instead of the (unfortunately) more usual drop into oblivion that open source projects experience at the end of their lives.

And, I hope that the explicitness of this process really helps push people over to the wonderful world of mod_wsgi and its great features. Keep us updated!

Deron Meranda said...

Graham, thanks for the informative post.

I know I've discussed before; but I'm one (of the few?) who currently use and depend on many of the advanced Apache handler features that mod_python provides. I'm still very interested in whether such things might make it into mod_wsgi or some add-on; and also if there's anything I could possibly help with to make that work easier.

Deron Meranda said...

Oh, shouldn't your announcement also be sent to the mod_python mailing list? I didn't see it (or it hasn't shown up yet). Thanks

Jack Diederich said...

I'm sad to see it go - I was a participant many moons ago and recall meeting Grisha at PyCon in DC; but happily it was retired because there are better alternatives.

Ruchir Choudhry said...

mod_wsgi-- Is a better and more reliable option.

In particular with Python-3.X on the horizon with 64 bit support its much easier to configure mod_wsgi VS mod_python.

I this we must move on to support mod_wsgi and help this community grow.

patsplat said...

Thanks for the clear and thoughtful post outlining the directions that python / apache development has taken.

Ruchir Choudhry said...

Session based clustering using mod_wsgi.

Friends: wanted to know how can we do session based clustering to scale the Python/mod-wsgi env, If I don’t want to use Apache clustering, load balancing or hardware based load balancing, is there any soln avilable, any help will be highly appreciate.

If there is just nothing avilable can we are a group try to do it? I can contribute to the society as much as possible.

Graham Dumpleton said...

@Ruchir. Have you looked at Beaker? That provides session mechanisms for systems using WSGI interface.

Ruchir Choudhry said...

I will surly look into the details of Beaker, on the face of it, it looks like this is not the soln I am looking for, I am looking to cluster multiple nodes of django, and I don’t want to loose session while moving from one node to other, my customer must not know that the node has died. Is there a possibility of doing it with the existing stack?

Graham Dumpleton said...

Beaker can use a separate database that holds session information, it is not in memory only. If it were only in memory, then even a single Apache instance wouldn't work as most modes of Apache are multi process. If something supports multi process model, then shouldn't be any reason why the multiple processes cant be on different systems. The only caveat is that must be a database that can be accessed from remote nodes, ie., not sqlite for example.

Ruchir Choudhry said...

Appreciate your clarification,
I will try it and let you know how it went.