On Dec 2, 5:39 pm, Alvaro Lopez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 02-dic-08, at 02:11, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > > > > >> 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'smod_wsgicomes 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. > > >> IMHOmod_wsgiis 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. > > >> 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_. > > > If you didn't want to kick off the discussion again, then perhaps hold > > back on the FUD, especially since it seems you perhaps still don't > > understand how Apache/mod_wsgi really works. > > Dude, *stop it*. Seriously. > > Independently of whether I personally think that mod_swgi is simply a > pile, I haven't joined its mailing list to give off about it and > promote Cherokee; have I? It'd be lame. > > Let's face it. It is plain and simple: ignore the Apache+mod_wsgi > architectural madness for a second and make the real test. As I said, > you will see that it is a much faster solution - and of course, more > reliable and secure. > > But again, I don't think you are seeking any sort of technical > discussion here; so cut the.. noise, please.
I would love to see a proper technical discussion why you feel that Cherokee is faster for Python web hosting and why it is more secure. In the past when information was provided it mischaracterised how Apache/mod_wsgi worked and all I have done is set the record straight by providing the technical information about how it actually worked and why at a technical level the claims don't really make sense. Even though I presented this technical information as part of the discussion there wasn't really any response to counter it. So, who is the one not wanting to discuss it? At the same time, there has been no acknowledgement of how it is all a pointless discussion anyway since the size of the Python web applications based on major frameworks means that the hosting layer is not where the bottleneck is. Issues of security also depend greatly on the context of what a user wants to do and who controls the system it runs on. This gets ignored as does the fact that Apache/mod_wsgi has various options you can use depending on the degree of hostile environment in which it operates. If you don't want what you regard as noise, then don't make blanket statements about something which so far you give the appearance of not understanding properly. Graham _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
