> This is a new wsgi web server implemented in a single file.
> http://code.google.com/p/web2py/source/browse/gluon/sneaky.py
Thank you Massimo.
Regards,
Malcolm
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Le Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:38:19 -0800, Aahz a écrit :
> In article ,
> Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>>Apparently you have debugged your speed issue so I suppose you don't
>>have performance problems anymore. Do note, however, that Python is
>>generally not as fast as C -- especially for low-level stuff
This is a new wsgi web server implemented in a single file.
http://code.google.com/p/web2py/source/browse/gluon/sneaky.py
I could use some help with testing.
Here is a version for Python 3.0
http://code.google.com/p/web2py/source/browse/gluon/sneaky.py
Massimo
On Dec 25, 12:38 pm, a...@pytho
In article ,
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>Apparently you have debugged your speed issue so I suppose you don't have
>performance problems anymore. Do note, however, that Python is generally
>not as fast as C -- especially for low-level stuff -- and a Python Web
>server will probably serve around 1
Le Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:40:21 +0100, Irmen de Jong a écrit :
>
> I don't think that number is fair for Python. I think a well written
> Python web server can perform in the same ballpark as most mainstream
> web servers written in C. Especially Apache, which really isn't a top
> performer. And I'm
On 11-12-2009 14:52, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I've looked at the web servers that come bundled with the Python
standard library[1] and they are too slow.
Apparently you have debugged your speed issue so I suppose you don't have
performance problems anymore. Do note, however, that Python
Hello,
> I've looked at the web servers that come bundled with the Python
> standard library[1] and they are too slow.
Apparently you have debugged your speed issue so I suppose you don't have
performance problems anymore. Do note, however, that Python is generally
not as fast as C -- especial
On Dec 9, 4:05 pm, pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> > I'm using cherrypy for this purpose, actually together with turbogears 1.
>
> My research has constantly pointed back to cherrypy as a tool of choice
> for building local web servers. My initial impression was that cherrypy
> was too big
Daniel,
> I'm using cherrypy for this purpose, actually together with turbogears 1.
My research has constantly pointed back to cherrypy as a tool of choice
for building local web servers. My initial impression was that cherrypy
was too big and complicated for my simple task. However, I'm going to
Tim,
> I've used WebStack[1] for this in the past. It allows for stand-alone serving
> as well as plugging nicely into various "real" servers (apache+mod_python,
> etc) with a small tweak in how it's configured.
Thanks for that recommendation.
> I'm not sure what caused the slowness you've exp
> I'm looking for a small, simple, fast, Python based web server
> for a simple, client side application we're building. We don't
> want to distrubute and support a "real" web server like Apache or
> Tomcat or depend on the presence of local web server such as IIS.
> The application in question wil
pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
I'm looking for a small, simple, fast, Python based web server
for a simple, client side application we're building.
I've used WebStack[1] for this in the past. It allows for
stand-alone serving as well as plugging nicely into various
"real" servers (apache+mod_pyt
I'm looking for a small, simple, fast, Python based web server
for a simple, client side application we're building. We don't
want to distrubute and support a "real" web server like Apache or
Tomcat or depend on the presence of local web server such as IIS.
The application in question will service
13 matches
Mail list logo
