Dieter Maurer wrote:
Someone already worked on this and reported success.
He integrated a ZEO client via mod_python.
Yep, that was Philipp. I wonder where that project ended up?
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
Martijn Faassen wrote:
It would be very nice if we could make that work! Zope as a drop-in
Apache extension would certainly help wider adoption.
Yes indeed :-)
We're not a normal pythonish Apache thing though, 'cos we need to
rigidly limit the number of app server threads because of the
Jim Fulton wrote:
Does the Zope 2 server need that much work? It seems to do a pretty
good job...
I don't know. It does seem to do a pretty good job. But I'm not aware of
any one else who's in a position to fix it if it breaks or needs to be
enhanced.
Anyone else apart from who?
I'm sure
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-12-19 17:27 -0500:
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-12-19 11:54 -0500:
...
I made a mistake several years ago when I decided to (have Amos)
implement FTP over ZPublisher. The Zope publisher is a CGI-inspired
HTTP-based and thus stateless API. It is a poor
Chris Withers wrote at 2006-12-20 09:15 +:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
It would be very nice if we could make that work! Zope as a drop-in
Apache extension would certainly help wider adoption.
Yes indeed :-)
We're not a normal pythonish Apache thing though, 'cos we need to
rigidly limit the
On 2006-12-19 16:12:47 +0100, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think only Michael Kerrin actively supports Twisted. I'm not sure
what the status of that is. The last time I made time to pay attention to
this, at the time we released Zope 3.2, the Twisted WSGI integration
had a lot of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
snip
I agree with your assessment. It is extremely difficult to figure out which
WSGI server fulfills Zope's criteria. In fact, I would suspect that only
ZServer (Zope 2 and 3 version) does, because
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I'm not certain that we're actively supporting either server.
But *in practice* we're supporting the Twisted integration, as that's
the only one that people use now, right? We may not be actually capable
or willing to offer such support, but since everybody
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
snip
I agree with your assessment. It is extremely difficult to figure out which
WSGI server fulfills Zope's criteria. In fact, I would suspect that only
ZServer (Zope 2 and 3
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 11:22, Christian Theune wrote:
Another question: How does the WSGI integration relate to HTTP-based
servers (like WebDAV and XMLRPC) and how does it relate to
non-HTTP-based servers?
All HTTP-based servers are covered, since our application code makes the
decision
Jim Fulton wrote:
We have performance and reliability expectations which come from running
mission-critical applications. Lots of the rest of the folks interested
in servers don't have those requirements (yet, anyway), and hence aren't
motivated to address them in their externally-maintained
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I'm not certain that we're actively supporting either server.
But *in practice* we're supporting the Twisted integration, as that's
the only one that people use now, right?
Wrong. Use != support.
We may not be actually capable
or
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 11:22, Christian Theune wrote:
Another question: How does the WSGI integration relate to HTTP-based
servers (like WebDAV and XMLRPC) and how does it relate to
non-HTTP-based servers?
All HTTP-based servers are covered, since our application
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:
snip
I agree with your assessment. It is extremely difficult to figure out
which
WSGI server fulfills Zope's
Jim Fulton wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I find it impossible to believe that others don't have such
mission-critical requirements.
Maybe they hand off the hard bits too Apache?
Excellent suggestion, Chris, thank you!
Some of them do, I'm sure.
Could we?
Sure,
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
[snip]
I'm not certain that we're actively supporting either server.
But *in practice* we're supporting the Twisted integration, as that's
the only one that people use now, right?
Wrong. Use != support.
[snip]
Such a flat out
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
...
I'm having second thoughts about the Twisted integration for a number
of reasons:
* Twisted people actively dislike eggs. They won't eggify Twisted any
time soon.
Yes, but I think they do use distutils source releases,
Tres Seaver wrote:
...
How much maintenance do you imagine the Zope2 ZServer requires?
...
I have no idea.
It is
already basically feature complete (the Keep-Alive bit which kicked off
this thread is a known exception),
AFAIK this thread was about Zope 3's ZServer, which, BTW, has very
Jim Fulton wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
[snip zope.interface missing]
Hm, so it was checked by setup. Dang. Well, we could hack around this
in various ways, but it wouldn't be fun.
Yes, it appears it was checked by setup.py. In my experience the
diversity of special setup.py's out there
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote at 2006-12-19 11:54 -0500:
...
I made a mistake several years ago when I decided to (have Amos)
implement FTP over ZPublisher. The Zope publisher is a CGI-inspired
HTTP-based and thus stateless API. It is a poor fit for FTP and I
overgeneralized.
Why do
20 matches
Mail list logo
