On 20/07/13 12:32, Christian Schmitt wrote:
I would recommand to remove FastCGI.
That's the thing i love with the Python Community. Remove depracted or
obsolete things.
The thing is, there are way more important things to do, than supporting
a 'depracted' way to deploy. And it's really not that hard to get
mod_wsgi with a httpd running.
You could strip that down so easily and compile it, even on CentOS.
The thing that people seem to be missing here is that FastCGI is not
obsolete. There is currently no other deployment technology that can
reasonably replace it for the people who make use of it (with the
possible exception of SCGI).
FastCGI is essential in environments where websites are hosted that use
different languages and frameworks. WSGI is Python only and therefore
would require two deployment methods based on technology used increasing
maintenance overhead and ultimately cost.
uWSGI is starting to get a few more plugins written for it for other
languages but it is still lacking somewhat (and when I have a couple of
days spare I may well work on adding some of what I need).
Nor is FastCGI obsolete. People in the technology field suffer from a
problem were old = bad when in fact old means stability which is crucial
for important production sites. Flup may well have issues and I would be
more than happy to work on fixing those issues but lets not mistake
problems with Flup as problems with FastCGI itself. Flup is an
implementation. FastCGI is a protocol and the protocol is just fine.
--
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.
