On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
Ah! Of course! Seems obvious now, but it might be a FAQ-worthy question as I'm guessing lots of Apache refugees might wonder the same thing. Thanks, and I look forward to using Cherokee in production in the near future! _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
