On Dec 2, 12:33 pm, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > One also has to realise that no one single web server is going to be > > the answer to everything. Apache/mod_wsgi can be a really good > > solution for hosting dynamic Python web applications, but as I said > > before, for serious sites you may want to use a different web server > > for serving static content and large media files. > > What about the put mouth money thing. It is not difficult to write a > handler. How difficult would it be for someone that really really likes > mod_wsgi to put on a bounty or start coding?
It has in part been stated before, but Apache/mod_wsgi does not define what WSGI is. The Apache/mod_wsgi module is just an implementation of the WSGI API specification. Anyone who even considered doing stuff with WSGI in relation to Cherokee would have to be clear about what they are trying to do. Are they just trying to provide a basic means of embedding Python web application via WSGI API, like was done when some one tried the same with nginx, and which therefore has got nothing to do with Apache/mod_wsgi. Or are they intending to reproduce the Apache/mod_wsgi experience, which goes much beyond just a basic embedding of Python web application, the latter providing a daemon mode, multiple sub interpreter functionality, easy application reloading with daemon mode, an understanding of Python virtual environments etc etc. If one is only targeting basic embedding, then you will only end up with what happened with nginx. A system which was only really useful for handling dynamic requests and where it was still recommended to handle static requests via another server instance. If one is going to do the same for Cherokee, and handling dynamic requests at same time as static requests isn't going to work well, then there is no point, you may as well just use fastcgi/scgi. The problems in nginx in respect of Python/WSGI embedding came down to its internal architecture, it just isn't suited to it, where as the Apache process/ multiprocess model is more suited to it being able to handle both roles for the majority of cases. Graham > Maybe do it as information source, etc. > > So much debate, so few work. > > Stefan > _______________________________________________ > Cherokee mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
