On 6/1/17 8:15 PM, aberba wrote:
On Thursday, 1 June 2017 at 10:13:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 5/31/17 6:42 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 19:17:16 Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
It just means that D is an inferior platform for a web framework,
unless you use the process-per-request model so the entire thing
doesn't go down for one page request. But that obviously is going to
cause performance problems.
Which is unfortunate, because vibe.d is a great platform for web
development, other than this. You could go Adam's route and just put
the blinders on, but I think that's not a sustainable practice.
I'm glad I know enough to know this is an opinion...
Don't get me wrong, I think D will be better than other frameworks for
those who are willing to work with the warts. But the perception is
going to be that D web frameworks are too fragile -- one miswritten
handler, and your whole webserver dies. DOS attacks will be easy with D
web frameworks, even if you have distributed handling.
anyway, its better to run a vibe.d instance in something like daemonized
package. You should also use the vibe.d error handlers.
I found the way to restart it using systemd, so that part should be
handled. Now, I need to push up moving my session handling into a
persistent storage (just using the memory storage for now).
-Steve
