Hi there,
One issue I have with using paste deploy's pipeline configuration for
endware is that such configuration sometimes really wants to be part
of a library. I.e. I don't want to configure a tower of endwares each
time I write an application, I want to reuse some premade configuration
Chris McDonough wrote:
[snip]
While I think that would be a good thing, I do want to mention that it's not
really the point of the whatsitdoing benchmark.
Right, agreed. I think it's more important to make the Zope Framework
more comprehensible than it is to improve its performance. Its
Hi all,
I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the subject more
thoroughly.
Shane
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Dan Korostelev wrote:
Also, how easy is to integrate existing non-zopeish WSGI middlewares
into the zope.pipeline? Like some resource injectors or XHTML slimmers
and so on. It would be really great to be able to do that with single
ZCML directive.
You can do that with two ZCML directives. I
2009/2/25 Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com:
One area that I'd like to see support for is some easy way to turn off
security proxies. It's rumored there is such a way but with Grok, we
ended up ripping them off repeatedly anyway. Am I right in that it
should be possible to put a WSGI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Shane
Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
Hi all,
I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts on the
subject
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
WSGI with other server concepts.
WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
performance. The WSGI servers I know about are reasonably
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Dan Korostelev wrote:
Also, how easy is to integrate existing non-zopeish WSGI middlewares
into the zope.pipeline? Like some resource injectors or XHTML slimmers
and so on. It would be really great to be able to do that with single
ZCML directive.
You can do that with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tres Seaver wrote:
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Shane
Betreff: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
Hi all,
I've put up a draft of a zope.pipeline proposal:
http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZopePipeline
The proposal is intended to explain my thoughts
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
Yes, you can just use Paste Deploy instead of the
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the existing
behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a paste-driven WSGI
pipeline doesn't gain you much speed (but it is not a loss, either).
If, for a given application, you can relax the BBB
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
What's the overhead of a WSGI middleware? Is the overhead cost in the
same order of magnitude as a simple function call with a return value or
is there something inherently more complex going on?
A WSGI middleware app is simply a callable thing that calls the next
Hey,
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
create_request -- should this maybe have some compatibility with WebOb
requests?
I've looked at WebOb, and my impression is that Zope requests and WebOb
requests serve completely different purposes. A Zope request is
essentially
Hi all
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the
existing behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a
paste-driven
WSGI pipeline doesn't gain you much speed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi all
Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Zope.pipeline proposal
Hey,
Tres Seaver wrote:
[snip]
In general, if you need full-on backward compatibility with the
existing behavior of Zope2 / Zope3 / Grok, switching to a
paste
Hi Tres
http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework
forward in this
area.
I absolutly agree!
As far as I can
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
I'm used to using Paste Deploy ini files to configure a WSGI pipeline.
Is this simply an alternative to that? If so, do we really need our own
alternative, or could we try to use the Paste Deploy stuff directly?
Yes, you can just use Paste Deploy
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Do you know something about the performance of WSGI?
I whould be happy to see some perfomance tests comparing
WSGI with other server concepts.
WSGI is extremely lightweight, so WSGI itself isn't going to affect
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Shane Hathaway wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
clean_transaction -- is this not the same as repoze.tm2?
No. To mimic the current Zope publisher, we need to commit the
transaction shortly after the call application is finished, but then a
lot of things can still happen
Roger Ineichen wrote:
Hi Tres
http://plope.com/whatsitdoing2
This is why zope.pipeline is such an important effort to me.
Not that it will immediately make things better, but it would
hopefully open up a path to move the Zope Framework
forward in this
area.
I absolutly agree!
As
20 matches
Mail list logo
