On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:38:24PM -0700, Jonathan Vanasco wrote: >> >> I'm a little unclear on the better ways to deploy a Pylons app. >> >> My production servers run nginx -- is it better to use some fastcgi >> support (if so, how?) or just do a "paster serve" and proxy to that >> port? >> >> I've read a handful of ways on how-to-deploy apps, and all seem >> different. I've yet to see a comparison or "this is THE way to do it" >> document.
There is no THE way to do it. There are several ways which perform well, and some of them may even work on your platform. I prefer HTTP proxying because it's the closest to native request handling. > This works really well. It seems a lot of people hate FCGI for > different reasons, but I have found it to be pretty awesome. People hate FCGI because it was buggy and error-prone for years. Maybe it has gotten better now. > Apps are > very stable, no complicated proxying, and it's almost as performant as > mod_python. As you see, "complicated" is in the eye of the beholder. :) I would say proxying is less complicated than *CGI. > I have considered converting our deployments to mod_python, but only > recently acquired a practical staging environment to test things like > that. There was a point in using mod_python before mod_wsgi existed. Now that mod_wsgi exists, is more directly related to the task, and has a better history of being reliable, why not use it? -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
