For those who are keen to keep support for FastCGI, would you be interested in helping me develop/maintain a Pure Python FastCGI->WSGI(Django-specific) publisher package?
I agree it's valuable to have, as many have said [and I believe all have agreed] but to keep it in core is unmaintainable. And by "help", it could just be as much as feature requests, documentation, or testing [always testing! :)] -- Curtis Maloney On 19 July 2013 08:53, Javier Guerra Giraldez <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Juan Luis Boya <[email protected]> wrote: > > uWSGI + FastCGI: We should have nice docs about this. > > > as others have previously said, uWSGI isn't viable for everybody. is > there any other pure-python fcgi-wsgi server with reasonable > performance? > > i think several people like to use gunicorn for http-wsgi, if it (or > something similar: flask? wep.py?, werkzeug?) supports fcgi, it could > be the recommended fcgi solution. > > > -- > Javier > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
