Bob Ippolito wrote: > On Jan 30, 2006, at 1:27 PM, Kevin Dangoor wrote: > > > > > On 1/30/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This seems like a much simpler and more robust platform to build on > >> top of. It'd probably help out with performance too, since it > >> doesn't have all of that filter crap on every hit (which belongs in > >> middleware or decorators anyway, not per-object). I'd trade the > >> advantages of WSGI for the "stability"/ancestry of CherryPy any day, > >> but I'm not Kevin :) > > > > That may be, but you *are* Bob. I tend to pay attention to your > > opinions, because they're often pretty close to the mark. > > > > As an aside to this, Christian *dowski has put forth a minor update to > > the CP server that allows use of WSGI middleware with CherryPy: > > http://projects.dowski.com/projects/cp_middleware_server > > > > Something that struck me as a big gap in RhubarbTart is session > > handling. Earlier today, though, Christian linked to a WSGI session > > handler, so I guess there is something out there. > > Well, from what I've read, session handling is fragile at best in > CherryPy anyway. Something to do with concurrency issues. I try not > to use sessions myself, stateless is king.
I've used CherryPy sessions for several years in a heavy concurrent environment (lots of concurrent users). I mostly used the RAM backend or the database backend and it works great. Lately some people have reported issues with file sessions (which I never really used myself) and these issues have been fixed in the 2.2.0beta release. Remi.
