On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:53:30AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: > I can imagine a good setup for hosts being one based on forking per-user > processes, which is adaptive primarily to scale down -- e.g., a largely > dorman app could have 1 or even 0 processes running (at 0 it becomes > similar to CGI, but presumably the process would stay around for some > time to respond to subsequent requests). The "scaling down" scenario I > often think about would be a email contact form -- one of those things > that has to be an app, can be implemented and deployed separately from > other aspects of the site, and yet it's clear waste of resources to keep > a process always around to respond to such requests. Though it's > actually someplace where CGI would work just fine; but lets say you > don't want to educate the developer about when they might want to use > other deployment strategies (which is a rather complex discussion > really, that would be better avoided by providing one really good > strategy and telling everyone to use it).
Why prefer forking to threads in this case? -- Jacob Smullyan
pgpkzeVnS99ME.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Web-SIG mailing list Web-SIG@python.org Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
