How to run SimpleHTTPServer on IronPython on Mono

Discussion in 'Python' started by Sanghyeon Seo, Mar 18, 2006.

  1. I took some time to write this HOWTO:
    http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/fepy/howto/simplehttpserver-ironpython-mono-howto.html

    IronPython seems to get much less interest than it deserves. This
    howto shows how to setup IronPython to use with Mono on Linux and how
    to rebuild IronPython from source. It also discusses various patches
    to current problems. It also shows that IronPython can run
    SimpleHTTPServer today, not a trivial achievement.

    Hopefully, more Pythonistas on comp.lang.python will have a look at IronPython.

    Here's the excerpt from the howto:

    The purpose of this document is twofold: to show how to run
    SimpleHTTPServer on IronPython on Mono, and to debunk some myths like:

    * IronPython doesn't run on Mono
    * IronPython doesn't support Python standard library
    * IronPython is a toy

    Enjoy!

    Seo Sanghyeon
    Sanghyeon Seo, Mar 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sanghyeon Seo

    Paul Boddie Guest

    Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
    > I took some time to write this HOWTO:
    > http://sparcs.kaist.ac.kr/~tinuviel/fepy/howto/simplehttpserver-ironpython-mono-howto.html


    Thanks for spending the time writing this. Whilst I don't run Mono or
    anything similar, new Python documentation is surely a welcome thing.

    > IronPython seems to get much less interest than it deserves.


    [...]

    > The purpose of this document is twofold: to show how to run
    > SimpleHTTPServer on IronPython on Mono, and to debunk some myths like:
    >
    > * IronPython doesn't run on Mono


    But it does require recent versions, according to the document.
    Requiring the latest stuff straight from the revision control
    repository is always an inhibiting factor in the adoption of software.

    > * IronPython doesn't support Python standard library
    > * IronPython is a toy


    I don't think people really believe either of these any more. However,
    the IronPython developers haven't really done a good job at explaining
    the benefits of their work, or clearing up potential misconceptions.
    For example, take a look at the previously-promoted Web site:

    http://www.ironpython.com

    It's out-of-date and doesn't mention the current Web site, which is a
    mere section of some corporate "community" site for .NET: hardly a good
    way of promoting something with (potential for) a fairly decent brand
    identity.

    Then, consider the licensing situation: whilst IronPython appears to
    have a fairly permissive licence [1], Microsoft have decided to put it
    under their "shared source" umbrella [2], confusing things
    substantially, since that label used to mean that you could
    conditionally look at Microsoft's code but do little else with it; even
    now they promote three licences, one of which being similar but not
    exactly the same as the "Shared Source License for IronPython". With
    various existing open source licences, particularly the Free Software
    licences, you know where you stand almost straight away. Meanwhile,
    confusing, marketing-directed labelling only makes people less certain
    about what they're getting into and what's being hidden from them.
    However, one benefit of Microsoft's desire to simplify their licensing
    is that the resulting compatibility with existing licences has had some
    tentative recognition [3].

    Finally, there's the issue of the platform. I imagine that many people
    regard the debate as being over as to whether Mono and other similar
    projects independent of Microsoft are genuinely open, now that various
    Free Software-oriented GNU/Linux distributions are planning to
    distribute Mono, but the Mono developers don't score any publicity
    points for having belittled some fairly legitimate concerns about
    things like patent claims related to the various "standards" involved.
    For what it's worth, nagging concerns about the Java platform's
    openness (especially related to the add-on standards like J2EE) still
    linger in the open source community.

    One other thing, not any fault of the IronPython developers themselves:
    I guess it doesn't help that the canonical implementation of Python -
    CPython - keeps growing new features which have already left Jython
    struggling to catch up. If IronPython users consider themselves to be
    part of the wider Python community, is it a good thing that they're
    reliant on Microsoft to keep that community from fragmenting?

    Paul

    [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00089.html
    [2]
    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/sharedsourcelicenses.mspx
    [3] http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2005q4/000120.html
    Paul Boddie, Mar 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sanghyeon Seo

    Guest

    Paul Boddie wrote:
    > Sanghyeon Seo wrote:
    > > The purpose of this document is twofold: to show how to run
    > > SimpleHTTPServer on IronPython on Mono, and to debunk some myths like:
    > >
    > > * IronPython doesn't run on Mono

    >
    > But it does require recent versions, according to the document.
    > Requiring the latest stuff straight from the revision control
    > repository is always an inhibiting factor in the adoption of software.


    Yes, it's unfortunate, as I wrote on the howto myself. Of course, you
    can
    use released version of MS.NET for easier install.

    Also note that current release (1.1.13.4) of Mono runs and compiles
    IronPython 1.0 Beta 1, 2, 3 just fine. Only the latest release (Beta 4)
    has problems.

    > > * IronPython doesn't support Python standard library
    > > * IronPython is a toy

    >
    > I don't think people really believe either of these any more.


    Maybe *you* don't, but take a look at the following thread for example:
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/2762f6dfc5f72651

    Some quotes:
    "It seems, that usage of IronPython is currently limited to Windows
    platform"
    "However, there isn't e.g. a os-module in IronPython"

    Which are, false. (They were false even at the time posts were
    written.)

    And finally, Ian Bicking said:
    > I think concrete instructions on exactly how to get
    > IronPython up and working -- for someone with no .NET experience or
    > familiarity with that toolset -- would be an excellent way to bring
    > more attention to IronPython from the existing Python community.


    So that's exactly what I tried to do.

    > IronPython developers haven't really done a good job at explaining
    > the benefits of their work, or clearing up potential misconceptions.
    > For example, take a look at the previously-promoted Web site:
    >
    > http://www.ironpython.com
    >
    > It's out-of-date and doesn't mention the current Web site, which is a
    > mere section of some corporate "community" site for .NET: hardly a good
    > way of promoting something with (potential for) a fairly decent brand
    > identity.


    I am aware of these problems and will discuss this in the mailing list
    soon. At least, updating the website and having the public bug tracker
    are important. (gotdotnet.com tracker isn't one IronPython team is
    using.)

    > Then, consider the licensing situation: whilst IronPython appears to
    > have a fairly permissive licence [1], Microsoft have decided to put it
    > under their "shared source" umbrella [2], confusing things
    > substantially, (snip)
    > However, one benefit of Microsoft's desire to simplify their licensing
    > is that the resulting compatibility with existing licences has had some
    > tentative recognition [3].
    > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00089.html


    Do you realize *I* was the person asking for clarification of the
    license
    on debian-legal mailing list?

    > If IronPython users consider themselves to be
    > part of the wider Python community, is it a good thing that they're
    > reliant on Microsoft to keep that community from fragmenting?


    I quite don't get what you are trying to say here.

    Seo Sanghyeon
    , Mar 19, 2006
    #3
  4. Sanghyeon Seo

    Paul Boddie Guest

    wrote:
    > Paul Boddie wrote:
    > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00089.html

    >
    > Do you realize *I* was the person asking for clarification of the license
    > on debian-legal mailing list?


    Yes. And I thereby deduce that you also believe that having Debian
    approval would mean a lot for IronPython's acceptance, since the Debian
    people are regarded as being the most stringent with respect to Free
    Software-compatible licensing in distributions.

    > > If IronPython users consider themselves to be
    > > part of the wider Python community, is it a good thing that they're
    > > reliant on Microsoft to keep that community from fragmenting?

    >
    > I quite don't get what you are trying to say here.


    This was about how CPython can get away from other implementations by
    adding new features. As we've seen with Jython, if there's relatively
    little community interest in keeping other Python implementations
    up-to-date, and if there's no sponsor with the manpower on hand to do
    the work, then everyone in the CPython camp is busy using such new
    features in their code, while everyone else is busy wondering if
    they'll ever see such new features. Microsoft seem to be committed to
    delivering IronPython, and perhaps if they lose interest the community
    will step in and do the work, but in such a situation I feel that the
    whole Python community (users of CPython *and* other implementations
    combined) will suffer "fragmentation" as CPython speeds ahead and
    IronPython lags behind just as Jython has done.

    Sure, choosing Jython or IronPython is usually a trade-off between
    wanting some of the nice Python libraries and wanting access
    respectively to Java and CLR libraries, and perhaps many people using
    these implementations don't consider themselves as part of (or primary
    members of) the wider Python community; if so, it could be said that
    the Python "brand" is somewhat diminished already, since people may be
    willing to accept slightly more limited variants of the language, using
    implementation-specific libraries where standard library facilities
    exist, and generally writing an increasingly divergent dialect of the
    language.

    Personally, I think that having more implementations is a good thing
    for the language, mostly because it leads to new and interesting
    technical opportunities, but more engagement and support from the
    community "standards legislators" will definitely become necessary over
    time to avoid confusion about what is and is not "proper Python",
    especially if more people don't arrive at Python via CPython.

    Paul
    Paul Boddie, Mar 19, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Manat K.

    Mono

    Manat K., Aug 9, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    798
    Natty Gur
    Aug 11, 2003
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,745
    Scott Allen
    May 30, 2005
  3. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    687
    Alex Martelli
    Sep 10, 2006
  4. ErichCart ErichCart
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    612
    ErichCart ErichCart
    May 26, 2011
  5. Phil Tomson
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    122
    Robert Feldt
    May 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page