On 01-dic-08, at 19:25, Christopher Grebs wrote: > I have read the discussion about the issue of a missing WSGI wrapper > for Cherokee.
Please don't call it a "missing wrapper". I'd rather suggest something like "right technical decision". > I'm planning to push my whole infrastructure over to a Cherokee > based setup. But since there are many wsgi applications running I > would be pleased to let them run in the same way I did with my > apache setup. But with all advantages Cherokee provides (Load > Balancing, easy Administration etc.). I know that WSGI-Based > applications can run without any code patching on CGI/SCGI/FastCGI > and so on... But the way WSGI handles just everything is ingenious. Well, WSGI is certainly a really interesting thing. It allows developer to write web applications without having to worry about the protocol it uses underneath to communicate with the web server. That's a very good thing, actually. So, allow me to clarify things a little bit: The only purpose of WSGI is to provide an API with which developers could write protocol independent (as in SCGI, FastCGI, AJP 1.3, etc) applications. And here is where Apache's mod_wsgi comes into scene: it basic idea is to sunk a Python interpreter within the server, so the application calls go through a intermediate conversion layer to get converted to something the web server can deal with. IMHO mod_wsgi is simply a module that implements many wrong technical decisions altogether. I wouldn't like to kick off this discussion again, but basically, linking a whole interpreter within a web server is a clumsy approach: it's insecure and slow, aside of its flawed architectural design. I do think that your current approach is the way to go: The application server (your WSGI application) runs in a different process that communicates with the server through a local (unix?) socket. That is in fact a faster and much more secure and reliable way of working. _Give it a try, and you will see what I mean_. > Is there any progress on a WSGI module yet? Progress? No. It isn't simply on the roadmap. You can currently run WSGI applications by launching them as application servers (with either SCGI, FastCGI or HTTP access). Let's forget about all the hacks Apache had to come up with in order to ease its performance issues! So, summing up: WSGI is a really good thing. However, the mod_wsgi's approach is simply wrong.. and I'm willing to reproduce any of those Apache's bulky modules in Cherokee. :-) -- Octality http://www.octality.com/ _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
