Michael Schurter wrote: > Please forgive my naive question, but I've been following Cherokee for > a while without using it yet on any production servers. > > Any chance of Cherokee speaking WSGI natively in the future like > mod_wsgi for Apache? > > I've just been really happy with mod_wsgi for Apache, but I'd love to > switch to a lighter weight HTTP server like Cherokee.
This is a very good question, indeed. My understanding is that we should not implement anything like mod_wsgi for a number of reasons. Firstly, from the architectural point of view it is simply madness: how would somebody want a web server to contain a huge interpreter that is linked against dozens of libraries? Second, it sounds hard to believe that mod_wsgi is faster than a plain an simple SCGI application writing to a Unix socket. (Remember that WSGI application can also use FastCGI and SCGI backends). What people want is a fast web infrastructure, I do not believe there is someone who actually fancies Apache's bulky and monolithic style. Think it in this way: if you could keep the application logic running independently without hitting the performance (which is far more clean and secure), wouldn't you? Give Cherokee (SCGI|FastCGI) a try with your WSGI application.. and, let there be light! :-) My believe is that besides fixing both the architectural and security flaws you will improve performance. -- Greetings, alo http://www.alobbs.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
