On 20/07/13 13:24, Christian Schmitt wrote:
No FastCGI isn't a bad protocol. But it's not recommand to deploy Python
Application's with FastCGI. FastCGI is good for deploying PHP or even
sometimes Golang (but here, the plain Webserver is better).
But! FastCGI is a low level protocol and WSGI tries to get rid of that.
Flup is just a server/middleware that makes a WSGI based Application to
a SCGI/FCGI one. It's never recommand to use a low level api, when you
don't have to.
Also people who deployed on FastCGI should change that behavior to
mod_wsgi, and there are a shitload of hosters that already supporting
mod_wsgi, so it's really not that easy to change your hoster.
Btw. the djangoproject also have a good list which lists some hosters:
https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DjangoFriendlyWebHosts
I think you have completely missed my point. The people I am talking
about are the ones who maintain their own servers. Plus there are lots
of languages out there than can be deployed using FastCGI (off the top
of my head I know people use FastCGI for Haskell, Scheme, PHP, Go, Rust,
Python, Perl, C, and C++).
Your argument about FastCGI being a low level protocol is a bit weak to
be honest. Those using it know about the protocol and know how to work
with it. mod_wsgi does not solve the problem I laid out in my previous
post which is that it is better to have one deployment technology in use
regardless of the language used. This is what makes FastCGI unique at
the moment.
I'm longing for the day when uwsgi reaches the same level of adoption
but it won't be for sometime yet.
--
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
