On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM, a.fowler <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > No. Bad move. CGI via WSGI must be well documented. (With added >> > advice to use other methods, certainly.) >> >> Have you ever actually looked properly at the startup cost of a TG >> application, it is quite significant and sometimes far from being sub >> second. By using CGI you would get quite dreadful performance as every >> request has to load the whole framework. This loading on every request >> would severely impact the performance of the machine, so much so that >> an admin is likely to tell you to stop it, if it is a shared resource. >> It is for this reason that one shouldn't be using CGI and why it >> shouldn't be recommended. >>
Exactly this will hurts us mid-time, those "not enlighten" managers will say, but that thing crawls! lets go back to our perl + CGI scripts now that's fast! or they will say lets just pay "Big java firm" and "expensive hosting company" 2000 USD/month to get our CMS running. >> > > It's certainly, possible things have changed with TG2, but with early > TG.9/1.0, I was able to set up some simple demo Intranet/internal apps > that ran fine (if a tad slow) under CGI. True, they would have have > bucked under even a moderate load, but the fact that it "Just Worked" > for the simple case on the user's existing server, sparked interest in > and willingness to commit further resources to a TG based solution. > > And, frankly, the expected load (internal use only) was low enough > that CGI would have been fine even for permanent installation, if > really needed. > > (Though, at the time, TG was still very immature and was ultimately > rejected for that reason.) > > And remember, I am not suggesting that CGI be the recommended > deployment method. Any CGI docs should be plastered with the > appropriate warnings, and perhaps optimization tips, but they must > exist. :) > just set paster to serve on 0.0.0.0 and your "dev" server is intranet, a lot simpler than CGI and a lot faster. paster http is a full real server therefore it's even good for production of small sites and intranets (many people have this setup that way) >> >> Hmmm, are you saying mod_wsgi is non-trivial to setup just on >> principal or you have some reasoning to back that up. >> > > It more political/emotional that purely technical. > > Without an already invested user base, adding mod_wsgi presents a > problem for both use cases I mentioned: > > 1) The Corp IT department (or it's consulting firm), will very much > want to avoid any changes to the servers that they can be liable for. > If they are not already running wsgi for other apps, adding wsgi just > on a whim of a single developer, is not likely going to happen. > paster serve + mod_proxy, that is indeed one of the recommended setups (not sure if we have docs for it yet) > 2) The small biz owner/employee who has also been given the "IT hat" > also wants to use as much default configuration as possible. Not that > he/she could not figure it out, it's just more one complication. Why > bother when other, seemingly equivalent, options are already installed > by default? > paster serve is even better for this. > From my perspective, both above examples are plainly (and painfully) > obvious. I am somewhat surprised to even have to argue the point. > > Perhaps the "impedance mismatch" here is due to the main developers of > TG having the liberty of working for "enlightened" employers. But, > this is certainly not the case for the bulk of the potential TG2 > users. > well this is true. > TG2 desperately needs wider community involvement, and if TG2 is have > appeal to anyone outside of the "Ivory Tower" of it's "Liberated" > developers, some better understanding of the non-ideal development > environment is called for. > My problem with CGI is that ones you are able to do that it will be very very slow, TG and python in general is not coded to be run as CGI as python's start cost itself is a big disadvantage, you can compare it to trying to run J2EE on CGI :) That said I think no one said it wasn't possible we all said it's not recommended therefore I don't think it should be documented, if you want to go ahead patches are welcome but please put several ..warning: notices saying how this is bad. I don't want bad reviews poping around the net because someone wanted to run a 1000 hits/second TG app with CGI on a 3USD/month shared hosting and blame TG for it :) > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
