Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
IIS and ISAPI --> helicon ? AFAIK it was the "old" standard. When Azure eventually moved to support python web apps, smart guys at MS implemented the - until that moment - missing link to run natively a fastcgi python process speaking with IIS through the "same interface" that runs any other fastcgi-enabled language (e.g. PHP), which is the wfastcgi.py module/script. I'd go for the "newly and improved" rather than having a 3rd party integrated with ISAPI: less moving parts, better support moving forward as it's "100%" MS supported code. On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:45:36 AM UTC+1, Pbop wrote: > > We built a SHIB SSO and OAUTH SSO middleware in web2py that handles 1000+ > concurrent users with very good results in IIS and ISAPI running a WSGI > wrapper ala the cookbook instructions. I hear IIS and FastCGI and wonder if > this is a better deployment option? Are you aware of any advantages of one > over the other? > > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Niphlod wrote: >> >> it's from some time ago but should work without issues. I think some >> improvements have been made regarding wfastcgi availability as a proper >> package, but in any case, I'm here to help (and maybe we can revisit the >> segment on the book with your experience). >> >> : should be "verbatim" but improvements on MS side could have >> changed little bits. >> >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 2:09:07 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: >>> >>> OK! I failed last time but it worth try again. I will follow the book >>> try it later. >>> >>> http://www.web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes?search=iis#IIS >>> >>> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, Niphlod wrote: *nix --> nginx with uwsgi windows --> iis with fastcgi BTW: iis is perfectly fine running production envs. And it's NOT difficult. On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:01:22 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: > > Thank you! I will stick to Apache/wsgi for now. > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:54:37 PM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >> >> I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on >> Ubuntu where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows >> environment >> is different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered >> 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do >> use >> many other 'beta' projects) >> >> If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the >> book? >> >> @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to >> Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using >> pyodbc >> to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC >> (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. >> >> -Jim >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: >>> >>> I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a >>> web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce >>> the >>> number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs >>> are >>> willing to maintain... >>> >>> That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner >>> ship to update and maintain Apache setup script because it important >>> for >>> you we will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take >>> that >>> path before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want >>> to >>> get back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I >>> guess >>> you can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and >>> help >>> the community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate >>> in >>> the book. >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: > > Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also > mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's > why I > was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but > I use > pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so > not > sure if it works the same way. > > > "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and > his comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi > because > there are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." > > If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because Apache conf
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
We built a SHIB SSO and OAUTH SSO middleware in web2py that handles 1000+ concurrent users with very good results in IIS and ISAPI running a WSGI wrapper ala the cookbook instructions. I hear IIS and FastCGI and wonder if this is a better deployment option? Are you aware of any advantages of one over the other? On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 5:55:36 PM UTC-4, Niphlod wrote: > > it's from some time ago but should work without issues. I think some > improvements have been made regarding wfastcgi availability as a proper > package, but in any case, I'm here to help (and maybe we can revisit the > segment on the book with your experience). > > : should be "verbatim" but improvements on MS side could have > changed little bits. > > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 2:09:07 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: >> >> OK! I failed last time but it worth try again. I will follow the book try >> it later. >> >> http://www.web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes?search=iis#IIS >> >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, Niphlod wrote: >>> >>> *nix --> nginx with uwsgi >>> windows --> iis with fastcgi >>> >>> >>> BTW: iis is perfectly fine running production envs. And it's NOT >>> difficult. >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:01:22 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: Thank you! I will stick to Apache/wsgi for now. On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:54:37 PM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: > > I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on > Ubuntu where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows environment > is different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered > 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do > use > many other 'beta' projects) > > If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the > book? > > @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to > Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using > pyodbc > to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC > (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. > > -Jim > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: >> >> I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a >> web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce >> the >> number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs >> are >> willing to maintain... >> >> That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship >> to update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you >> we >> will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that >> path >> before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to >> get >> back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you >> can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the >> community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the >> book. >> >> Richard >> >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why I was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I use pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not sure if it works the same way. "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." >>> If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for >>> staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because >>> Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the >>> documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, >>> that's >>> one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache >>> security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and >>> complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" >>> structure]. >>> >>> I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on >>> his linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure >>> of >>> that. >>> >>> /dps >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: > > I haven't seen anything about
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
it's from some time ago but should work without issues. I think some improvements have been made regarding wfastcgi availability as a proper package, but in any case, I'm here to help (and maybe we can revisit the segment on the book with your experience). : should be "verbatim" but improvements on MS side could have changed little bits. On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 2:09:07 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: > > OK! I failed last time but it worth try again. I will follow the book try > it later. > > http://www.web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes?search=iis#IIS > > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, Niphlod wrote: >> >> *nix --> nginx with uwsgi >> windows --> iis with fastcgi >> >> >> BTW: iis is perfectly fine running production envs. And it's NOT >> difficult. >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:01:22 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: >>> >>> Thank you! I will stick to Apache/wsgi for now. >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:54:37 PM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on Ubuntu where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows environment is different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do use many other 'beta' projects) If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the book? @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using pyodbc to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. -Jim On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: > > I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a > web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce the > number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs are > willing to maintain... > > That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship > to update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you > we > will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that path > before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to get > back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you > can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the > community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the > book. > > Richard > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: >>> >>> Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also >>> mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's >>> why I >>> was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I >>> use >>> pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so >>> not >>> sure if it works the same way. >>> >>> >>> "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his >>> comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because >>> there >>> are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." >>> >>> >> If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for >> staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because >> Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the >> documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's >> one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache >> security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and >> complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" >> structure]. >> >> I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on >> his linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure >> of >> that. >> >> /dps >> >> >> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss something? To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on Windows. See the first paragraph here: http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html I think Apache is the way to go. http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with nginx / uwsgi. -Jim On Monday,
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
OK! I failed last time but it worth try again. I will follow the book try it later. http://www.web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes?search=iis#IIS On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:43:37 AM UTC-5, Niphlod wrote: > > *nix --> nginx with uwsgi > windows --> iis with fastcgi > > > BTW: iis is perfectly fine running production envs. And it's NOT difficult. > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:01:22 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: >> >> Thank you! I will stick to Apache/wsgi for now. >> >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:54:37 PM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >>> >>> I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on >>> Ubuntu where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows environment >>> is different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered >>> 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do use >>> many other 'beta' projects) >>> >>> If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the >>> book? >>> >>> @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to >>> Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using pyodbc >>> to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC >>> (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. >>> >>> -Jim >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce the number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs are willing to maintain... That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship to update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you we will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that path before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to get back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the book. Richard On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: >> >> Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also >> mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's >> why I >> was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I >> use >> pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so >> not >> sure if it works the same way. >> >> >> "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his >> comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because >> there >> are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." >> >> > If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for > staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because > Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the > documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's > one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache > security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and > complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" > structure]. > > I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on > his linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure > of > that. > > /dps > > > >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >>> >>> I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I >>> miss something? >>> >>> To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on >>> Windows. See the first paragraph here: >>> http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html >>> >>> I think Apache is the way to go. >>> http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi >>> >>> For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu >>> with nginx / uwsgi. >>> >>> -Jim >>> >>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too complicated for me. >>> -- > Resources: > - http://web2py.com > - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) > - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) > - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
*nix --> nginx with uwsgi windows --> iis with fastcgi On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 8:01:22 PM UTC+1, Omi Chiba wrote: > > Thank you! I will stick to Apache/wsgi for now. > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:54:37 PM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >> >> I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on Ubuntu >> where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows environment is >> different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered >> 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do use >> many other 'beta' projects) >> >> If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the book? >> >> @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to >> Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using pyodbc >> to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC >> (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. >> >> -Jim >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: >>> >>> I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a >>> web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce the >>> number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs are >>> willing to maintain... >>> >>> That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship to >>> update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you we >>> will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that path >>> before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to get >>> back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you >>> can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the >>> community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the >>> book. >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: > > Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also > mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why > I > was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I > use > pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not > sure if it works the same way. > > > "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his > comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there > are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." > > If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" structure]. I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on his linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure of that. /dps > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >> >> I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss >> something? >> >> To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on >> Windows. See the first paragraph here: >> http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html >> >> I think Apache is the way to go. >> http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi >> >> For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with >> nginx / uwsgi. >> >> -Jim >> >> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: >>> >>> I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't >>> support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I >>> tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too >>> complicated >>> for me. >>> >> -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code)
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
Thank you! I will stick to Apache/wsgi for now. On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:54:37 PM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: > > I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on Ubuntu > where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows environment is > different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered > 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do use > many other 'beta' projects) > > If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the book? > > @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to > Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using pyodbc > to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC > (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. > > -Jim > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: >> >> I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a >> web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce the >> number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs are >> willing to maintain... >> >> That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship to >> update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you we >> will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that path >> before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to get >> back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you >> can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the >> community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the >> book. >> >> Richard >> >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why I was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I use pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not sure if it works the same way. "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." >>> If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for >>> staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because >>> Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the >>> documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's >>> one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache >>> security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and >>> complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" >>> structure]. >>> >>> I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on his >>> linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure of that. >>> >>> /dps >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: > > I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss > something? > > To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on > Windows. See the first paragraph here: > http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html > > I think Apache is the way to go. > http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi > > For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with > nginx / uwsgi. > > -Jim > > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: >> >> I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't >> support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I >> tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too >> complicated >> for me. >> > -- >>> Resources: >>> - http://web2py.com >>> - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) >>> - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) >>> - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "web2py-users" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to web2py+un...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsub
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
I think the thread you referenced was one discussing deployment on Ubuntu where yes, nginx/uwsgi is preferred. But, the Windows environment is different (in my opinion) since the Windows nginx is still considered 'beta'. I wouldn't feel that comfortable using it. (that said, I do use many other 'beta' projects) If Apache/mod_wsgi is really frowned upon, should it be noted in the book? @omi - I migrated from Windows/Apache/mod_wsgi a while back to Ubuntu/nginx/uwsgi. I think that at that time I switched from using pyodbc to pypyodbc. I too access MS SQL servers from my ubuntu box using ODBC (along with IBM AS/400 databases). It works very well for me. -Jim On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 1:33:53 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote: > > I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a > web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce the > number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs are > willing to maintain... > > That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship to > update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you we > will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that path > before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to get > back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you > can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the > community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the > book. > > Richard > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: >>> >>> Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also mentioned >>> somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why I was >>> nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I use >>> pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not >>> sure if it works the same way. >>> >>> >>> "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his >>> comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there >>> are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." >>> >>> >> If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for >> staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because >> Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the >> documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's >> one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache >> security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and >> complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" >> structure]. >> >> I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on his >> linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure of that. >> >> /dps >> >> >> >>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss something? To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on Windows. See the first paragraph here: http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html I think Apache is the way to go. http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with nginx / uwsgi. -Jim On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: > > I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't > support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I > tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too > complicated > for me. > -- >> Resources: >> - http://web2py.com >> - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) >> - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) >> - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "web2py-users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to web2py+un...@googlegroups.com . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
I would say, we don't not don't support it, we just don't maintain a web2py setup script with Apache... I think the decision was to reduce the number of setup script to the bare minium to only the one web2py-devs are willing to maintain... That been said, I am sure that if you or someone else take owner ship to update and maintain Apache setup script because it important for you we will bring it back in the scripts folder... But I wouldn't take that path before someone demonstrate commitment to the task as we don't want to get back stuff that will not be maintain in years in the repo... I guess you can set your own github repo to demonstrate your commitment and help the community though, and it could be reference somewhere appropriate in the book. Richard On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Dave S wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: >> >> Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also mentioned >> somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why I was >> nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I use >> pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not >> sure if it works the same way. >> >> >> "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his >> comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there >> are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." >> >> > If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for staying > with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because Apache > configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the documentation > isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's one objection > overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache security updates > may be frequent and patching may be delicate and complicated [it's been > around long enough that may have an "organic" structure]. > > I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on his > linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure of that. > > /dps > > > >> On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >>> >>> I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss >>> something? >>> >>> To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on Windows. >>> See the first paragraph here: http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html >>> >>> I think Apache is the way to go. http://web2py.com/books/defa >>> ult/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi >>> >>> For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with >>> nginx / uwsgi. >>> >>> -Jim >>> >>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too complicated for me. >>> -- > Resources: > - http://web2py.com > - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) > - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) > - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "web2py-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:51:26 AM UTC-7, Omi Chiba wrote: > > Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also mentioned > somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why I was > nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I use > pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not > sure if it works the same way. > > > "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his > comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there > are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." > > If you have a working Apache configuration, that's an argument for staying with it [caveats follow]. Part of the deprecating is because Apache configuration is delicate, complicated, and [reportedly] the documentation isn't always helpful. If you're beyond that stage, that's one objection overcome. The caveats: there is some concern that Apache security updates may be frequent and patching may be delicate and complicated [it's been around long enough that may have an "organic" structure]. I think Niphlod has run both IIS and nginx on Windows, and nginx on his linux systems, but I'd have to go back through his posts to be sure of that. /dps > On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: >> >> I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss >> something? >> >> To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on Windows. >> See the first paragraph here: http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html >> >> I think Apache is the way to go. >> http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi >> >> For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with >> nginx / uwsgi. >> >> -Jim >> >> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: >>> >>> I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't >>> support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I >>> tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too complicated >>> for me. >>> >> -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
Thank you. I thought the Massimo's comment below and he also mentioned somewhere we don't want to support Apache anymore... that's why I was nervous. I was thinking to your direction (Moving to Ubuntu) but I use pyodbc to connect Microsoft SQL Server and DB2, also python-ldap.. so not sure if it works the same way. "P.S. I stand by Niphlod. He did not say anything offending and his comment was insightful. We do not recommend apache+mod_wsgi because there are better ways (nginx+uwsgi)." On Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 9:39:17 AM UTC-5, Jim S wrote: > > I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss > something? > > To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on Windows. > See the first paragraph here: http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html > > I think Apache is the way to go. > http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi > > For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with > nginx / uwsgi. > > -Jim > > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: >> >> I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't >> support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I >> tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too complicated >> for me. >> > -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[web2py] Re: web2py for windows server. IIS or Nginx?
I haven't seen anything about Apache no longer supported. Did I miss something? To my knowledge, nginx is not considered 'production ready' on Windows. See the first paragraph here: http://nginx.org/en/docs/windows.html I think Apache is the way to go. http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/13/deployment-recipes#Apache-and-mod_wsgi For me though, I've moved all of my production servers to Ubuntu with nginx / uwsgi. -Jim On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:31:06 PM UTC-5, Omi Chiba wrote: > > I'm running production site with Apache but it sounds like we don't > support apache anymore... which is one is better/easy option for me? I > tried IIS long time ago but didn't success... maybe it was too complicated > for me. > -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
