We Keep Coding

Python Web Server - mod_wsgi

I have been looking at setting up a web server to use Python and I have installed Apache 2.2.22 on Debian 7 Wheezy with mod_wsgi. I have gotten the initial page up and going and the Apache will display the contents of the wsgi file that I have in my directory.
However, I have been researching on how to deploy a Python application and I have to admin, I find some of it a little confusing. I am coming from a background in PHP where it is literally install what you need and you are up and running and PHP is processing the way it should be.
Is this the same with Python? I can't seem to get anything to process outside of the wsgi file that I have setup. I can't import anything from other files without the server throwing a "500" error. I have looked on Google and Bing to try to find an answer to this, but I can't seem to find anything, or don't know that what I have been looking at is the answer.
I really appreciate any help that you guys can offer.
Thanks in advance! (If I need to post any coding, I can do that, I just don't know what you guys would need, if anything, as far as coding examples for this...)

Python is different from PHP in that PHP executes your entire program separately for each hit to your website, whereas Python runs "worker processes" that stay resident in memory.
You need some sort of web framework to do this work for you (you could write your own, but using someone else's framework makes it much easier). Flask is an example of a light one; Django is an example of a very heavy one. Pick one and follow that framework's instructions, or look for tutorials for that framework. Since the frameworks differ, most practical documentation on handling web services with Python are focused around a framework instead of just around the language itself.
Nearly any python web framework will have a development server that you can run locally, so you don't need to worry about deploying yet. When you are ready to deploy, Apache will work, although it's usually easier and better to use Gunicorn or another python-specific webserver, and then if you need more webserver functionality, set up nginx or Apache as a reverse proxy. Apache is a very heavy application to use for nothing but wsgi functionality. You also have the option of deploying to a PaaS service like Heroku (free for development work, costs money for production applications) which will handle a lot of sysadmin work for you.
As an aside, if you're not using virtualenv to set up your Python environment, you should look into it. It will make it much easier to keep track of what you have installed, to install new packages, and to isolate an environment so you can work on multiple projects on the same computer.

My first web app (Python): use CGI, or a framework like Django?

I don’t want to burden you all with the details, but basically I’m a 2nd year compsci student with no Web dev experience.
Basically I want to create a small “web app” that takes in input from a html form, have a python script perform some calculations, and re-display those results in your browser.
As of right now, I have the form and script built. However, when I try to test the form, instead of running the script, my browser tries to download it. To my understanding, this is a cgi script problem, and that I must create a web server in order to test this script.
And heres were I’m stuck. I know little to nothing about web servers and how to set them up. On top of that I’ve heard that GCI scripting is a thing of the past, and requires major overhead in order to run properly.
This leads to my questions. How do I go about completing my app and testing my cgi script? Do I install apache and mess around with it or should I be looking into something like google app engine? Are there other ways to complete this task without cgi scripts? Where do frameworks like Django fit into this?

Django, while being nice, all-encompassing and well-supported, is sometimes too much for a small web application. Django wants you to play by its rules from the beginning, you'll have to avoid things like the database and admin panels if you don't need them. It's also easier, with Django, to follow its project layout, even when it's too complex for a simple app.
The so-called micro frameworks might suit you better for your small app. They are built upon the opposite principle: use the bare minimum of features now, add more as you need them.
Flask is based on Werkzeug WSGI library and Jinja2 templating (the latter is switchable), is extensively documented (with notes concerning virtualenv and stuff) and well-suited for small and larger apps alike. It comes bundled with an auto-reloading dev server (no need for Apache on your dev machine) and Werkzeug-powered interactive debugger. There are extensions for things like HTML forms and database ORM.
Bottle is as small as a microframework can get, consisting of 1 (one) file, dev server included. Drop it into your project folder and start hacking. The built-in SimpleTemplate templating engine is switchable, but the dev server is flakier in comparison to Flask's. The documentation is less complete, and, in my opinion, the whole thing is less polished and convenient as Flask.
In both cases, you use dev server locally, and then deploy using WSGI, the server interface for Python web apps which both frameworks support. There are many ways to deploy a WSGI app, Apache mod_wsgi being one of the popular ones.
I'd totally go with Flask unless one dependency (Bottle) is better than three (Flask, Jinja2 and Werkzeug).
(There are many other frameworks as well, so wait for their users to come and tell about them. I'd suggest to avoid web.py: it works, but is full of magic, and is inelegant compared to Flask or Bottle.)

One way of getting to working webapp quickly is by first understanding, and then modifying, something like the App Engine "guestbook" example. This has the benefit that much of the otherwise necessary tedium of running a web server and setting up a database server (assuming you need persistence) is done for you. App Engine also provides a fairly flexible development environment. It's certainly not the only way to go, and I'll admit to bias in recommending it, but it's fairly low friction.
GCI scripting is hardly a thing of the past, though it's not what the cool kids are doing. CGI has the benefit, and the curse, of exposing more of the raw plumbing. It forces you to understand a lot about primitive (in the low-level sense) web architecture, but it's also a bit of a large bite to chew on if you have an immediate problem to solve that can solved by simpler means.

It appears most python web development seems to be done by frameworks these days. There are a couple reasons for this:
a plethora of mature tools. Django has built in user auth, built in database management, built in sessions, built in just about everything ORM which lets you seamlessly supports a couple databases.
Built in webservers. The larger python frameworks like django and pylons have built in webservers. Django has a very simple webserver python manage.py startserver (that simple) That makes it extremely easy to create and debug applications. It is single threaded so dropping a debugger into it is painless
Huge communities. If you have a django question it will be answered very quickly the so community is huge.
The django tutorial will introduce you to all the major aspects of development. It is only 4 pages and you will be able to get your app going a lot simpler than having to read, learn and fiddle with an apache setup.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/intro/tutorial01/
Although django for right now might be overkill if your app is just going to be 1 form and a script to process it. Because of its seamless testing framework it is quite easy to grow any project. I have never used flask or bottle or the other microframeworks, but I would keep in mind where your project will be in the future.
As for where django fits into this, it is a full stack framework encompassing presentation (templates), data management (server orm), authentication, middleware, forms ... everything necessary to create a completely inclusive web application. Django and almost all other python frameworks implement the wsgi standard. It is an interface that allows for interoperation between webservers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Server_Gateway_Interface it is pretty dry and you will never have to interface it directly. That is what these frameworks do under the hood.

Why setup and maintain your own webserver if you can use app engine. It has an excellent SDK for testing your code. Here is an example https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/gettingstarted/handlingforms
And Django you will find here : https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/gettingstarted/templates
I prefer to use Jinja for templating.

Django comes with its own server, but in your case i would recommend apache and mod_python since it seems to be a rather simple site you're building.
Setting up Apache is a breeze and a simple search on the web should give you all you need.
You can find more information on mod_python here read up a little bit on it and then google after a tutorial that fits your needs.

is apache necessary while we have python's built-in SimpleHttpServer

I am new to the python web dev world and kind of confused about why we need a apache enviroment while we could run python web app with its build-in http sever? Also, from my experience, I could run an django app without setting up anything else. then why we still need apache + mod_wsgi? for performance?
actually what really confuse me is.... how my entry point of code should be written? e.g. I heard there are other advanced 'web server' as well like cherrypy/Tornado and every single of them will require different entry-point code. so I wonder if apache(+ mod_wsgi) is not overlapping with other web framework(I called them web server above)? (in most case) we should be using apache on production but use others as an 'addon'? thanks

Performance, stability, scalability, security, ...
The built in HTTP server is useful for simple testing or quickly running a web app on your development machine, but is in no way as scalable as the Apache server. Security will also likely be less hardened on the built-in one.
Also, Apache allows you to handle many extra things, such as vhosts, multiple kinds of server-side platforms (for instance, a Ruby on Rails app and a Django one on the same port/IP), which are harder to achieve with the built-in server.

Apache is way better than the python SimpleHTTPServer.
For one thing the SimpleHttpServer is single threaded, but apache can easily handle multiple threads. Apache can also be configured in many ways that SimpleHttpServer cannot do. Apache has an easy to use logging of requests, which is helpful for debugging & logging.

These days the standard entry point is a WSGI application object. Pretty well everything supports it. How each web framework exposes one, and how you set up each WSGI hosting mechanism to then use it is different. At the core though, the actual interface between web server and application is the same.

Performance and scalability would be the reasons to go with Apache in production. SimpleHTTPServer is fine for testing and internal use though.

Yes, in general you need those for performance.
If you want to avoid the complexity of setting up Apache until you really have to (which could be reasonable if you're short on time and/or lack experience) you will probably be better off by using CherryPy to serve Django. It has an all-Python web server with much better performance than the built-in.
You can find instructions for that here.

Simple python mvc framework

Is there any lightweight mvc webframework which is not necessary to install to the server?
I need something simple, that i could just copy to the shared hosting. And it must handle urls other that localhost/test.py, something like this localhost/Blog/test

You should probably check out Flask or Bottle, two nice Python microframeworks. With an appropriate "main" Python script (to initialize your app and dispatch requests to it) and mod_rewrite rules in place, you can probably get pretty close to your goal of "just copy[ing] to the shared hosting" with nice URLs.
Flask has good documentation on deploying via CGI, which is what you might have to use on your shared host. (If your host supports FastCGI or mod_wsgi, those deployment options would be preferable.)

Checkout web2py. Seems to be about the simplest python based webserver I can think of.
Django might do, it's hefty, but it comes with it's own development server.

web2py includes everything (ssl-enabled web server, sqlite sql based transaction safe database, web based Integrated Development Enviroment, web based database interface) in one package. The web2py binaries for windows and mac also include Python itself. web2py does not require configuration or installation and can run off a usb drive. It was originally developed as a teaching tool for MVC.

checkout https://github.com/salimane/bottle-mvc or https://github.com/salimane/flask-mvc . They are boilerplates that could get you started with controllers, models in separate folders. They are based on bottle and flask micro frameworks, no useless features, they give you the flexibility to plugin whatever modules you want.

How do you deploy your WSGI application? (and why it is the best way)

I am deploying a WSGI application. There are many ways to skin this cat. I am currently using apache2 with mod-wsgi, but I can see some potential problems with this.
So how can it be done?
Apache Mod-wsgi (the other mod-wsgi's seem to not be worth it)
Pure Python web server eg paste, cherrypy, Spawning, Twisted.web
as 2 but with reverse proxy from nginx, apache2 etc, with good static file handling
Conversion to other protocol such as FCGI with a bridge (eg Flup) and running in a conventional web server.
More?
I want to know how you do it, and why it is the best way to do it. I would absolutely love you to bore me with details about the whats and the whys, application specific stuff, etc.

As always: It depends ;-)
When I don't need any apache features I am going with a pure python webserver like paste etc. Which one exactly depends on your application I guess and can be decided by doing some benchmarks. I always wanted to do some but never came to it. I guess Spawning might have some advantages in using non blocking IO out of the box but I had sometimes problems with it because of the patching it's doing.
You are always free to put a varnish in front as well of course.
If an Apache is required I am usually going with solution 3 so that I can keep processes separate. You can also more easily move processes to other servers etc. I simply like to keep things separate.
For static files I am using right now a separate server for a project which just serves static images/css/js. I am using lighttpd as webserver which has great performance (in this case I don't have a varnish in front anymore).
Another useful tool is supervisord for controlling and monitoring these services.
I am additionally using buildout for managing my deployments and development sandboxes (together with virtualenv).

I would absolutely love you to bore me with details about the whats and the whys, application specific stuff, etc
Ho. Well you asked for it!
Like Daniel I personally use Apache with mod_wsgi. It is still new enough that deploying it in some environments can be a struggle, but if you're compiling everything yourself anyway it's pretty easy. I've found it very reliable, even the early versions. Props to Graham Dumpleton for keeping control of it pretty much by himself.
However for me it's essential that WSGI applications work across all possible servers. There is a bit of a hole at the moment in this area: you have the WSGI standard telling you what a WSGI callable (application) does, but there's no standardisation of deployment; no single way to tell the web server where to find the application. There's also no standardised way to make the server reload the application when you've updated it.
The approach I've adopted is to put:
all application logic in modules/packages, preferably in classes
all website-specific customisations to be done by subclassing the main Application and overriding members
all server-specific deployment settings (eg. database connection factory, mail relay settings) as class __init__() parameters
one top-level ‘application.py’ script that initialises the Application class with the correct deployment settings for the current server, then runs the application in such a way that it can work deployed as a CGI script, a mod_wsgi WSGIScriptAlias (or Passenger, which apparently works the same way), or can be interacted with from the command line
a helper module that takes care of above deployment issues and allows the application to be reloaded when the modules the application is relying on change
So what the application.py looks like in the end is something like:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os.path
basedir= os.path.dirname(__file__)
import MySQLdb
def dbfactory():
return MySQLdb.connect(db= 'myappdb', unix_socket= '/var/mysql/socket', user= 'u', passwd= 'p')
def appfactory():
import myapplication
return myapplication.Application(basedir, dbfactory, debug= False)
import wsgiwrap
ismain= __name__=='__main__'
libdir= os.path.join(basedir, 'system', 'lib')
application= wsgiwrap.Wrapper(appfactory, libdir, 10, ismain)
The wsgiwrap.Wrapper checks every 10 seconds to see if any of the application modules in libdir have been updated, and if so does some nasty sys.modules magic to unload them all reliably. Then appfactory() will be called again to get a new instance of the updated application.
(You can also use command line tools such as
./application.py setup
./application.py daemon
to run any setup and background-tasks hooks provided by the application callable — a bit like how distutils works. It also responds to start/stop/restart like an init script.)
Another trick I use is to put the deployment settings for multiple servers (development/testing/production) in the same application.py script, and sniff ‘socket.gethostname()’ to decide which server-specific bunch of settings to use.
At some point I might package wsgiwrap up and release it properly (possibly under a different name). In the meantime if you're interested, you can see a dogfood-development version at http://www.doxdesk.com/file/software/py/v/wsgiwrap-0.5.py.

The absolute easiest thing to deploy is CherryPy. Your web application can also become a standalone webserver. CherryPy is also a fairly fast server considering that it's written in pure Python. With that said, it's not Apache. Thus, I find that CherryPy is a good choice for lower volume webapps.
Other than that, I don't think there's any right or wrong answer to this question. Lots of high-volume websites have been built on the technologies you talk about, and I don't think you can go too wrong any of those ways (although I will say that I agree with mod-wsgi not being up to snuff on every non-apache server).
Also, I've been using isapi_wsgi to deploy python apps under IIS. It's a less than ideal setup, but it works and you don't always get to choose otherwise when you live in a windows-centric world.

Nginx reverse proxy and static file sharing + XSendfile + uploadprogress_module. Nothing beats it for the purpose.
On the WSGI side either Apache + mod_wsgi or cherrypy server. I like to use cherrypy wsgi server for applications on servers with less memory and less requests.
Reasoning:
I've done benchmarks with different tools for different popular solutions.
I have more experience with lower level TCP/IP than web development, especially http implementations. I'm more confident that I can recognize a good http server than I can recognize a good web framework.
I know Twisted much more than Django or Pylons. The http stack in Twisted is still not up to this but it will be there.

I'm using Google App Engine for an application I'm developing. It runs WSGI applications.
Here's a couple bits of info on it.
This is the first web-app I've ever really worked on, so I don't have a basis for comparison, but if you're a Google fan, you might want to look into it. I've had a lot of fun using it as my framework for learning.

TurboGears (2.0)
TurboGears 2.0 is leaving Beta within the next month (has been in it for plenty of time). 2.0 improves upon 1.0 series and attempts to give you best-of-breed WSGI stack, so it makes some default choices for you, if you want the least fuss.
it has the tg* tools for testing and deployment in 1.x series, but now transformed to paster equivalents in 2.0 series, which shoud seem familiar if you've expermiented with pylons.
tg-admin quickstart —> paster quickstart
tg-admin info —> paster tginfo
tg-admin toolbox –> paster toolbox
tg-admin shell –> paster shell
tg-admin sql create –> paster setup-app development.ini
Pylons
It you'd like to be more flexible in your WSGI stack (choice of ORM, choice of templater, choice of form-ing), Pylons is becoming the consolidated choice. This would be my recommended choice, since it offers excellent documentation and allows you to experiment with different components.
It is a pleasure to work with as a result, and works on under Apache (production deployment) or stand-alone (helpful for testing and experimenting stage).
so it follows, you can do both with Pylons:
2 option for testing stage (python standalone)
4 for scalable production purposes (FastCGI, assuming the database you choose can keep up)
The Pylons admin interface is very similar to TurboGears. Here's a toy standalone example:
$ paster create -t pylons helloworld
$ cd helloworld
$ paster serve --reload development.ini
for production-class deployment, you could refer to the setup guide of Apache + FastCGI + mod_rewrite is available here. this would scale up to most needs.

Apache httpd + mod_fcgid using web.py (which is a wsgi application).
Works like a charm.

We are using pure Paste for some of our web services. It is easy to deploy (with our internal deployment mechanism; we're not using Paste Deploy or anything like that) and it is nice to minimize the difference between production systems and what's running on developers' workstations. Caveat: we don't expect low latency out of Paste itself because of the heavyweight nature of our requests. In some crude benchmarking we did we weren't getting fantastic results; it just ended up being moot due to the expense of our typical request handler. So far it has worked fine.
Static data has been handled by completely separate (and somewhat "organically" grown) stacks, including the use of S3, Akamai, Apache and IIS, in various ways.

Apache+mod_wsgi,
Simple, clean. (only four lines of webserver config), easy for other sysadimns to get their head around.