Alan Kennedy wrote: > Here's a few comments I put together about the three contenders that > have been proposed so far. They're just my own comments from > reading the code: feel free to treat them as the ravings of > a madman if you so wish. > > 1. CherryPy server - 407 lines (non-code lines: ~80) > > - Depends on cherrypy, cherryp._cputil, cherryp.lib.httptools > - Depends on cherrypy.config
?? Perhaps you're assuming the wrapper in _cpwsgi is being proposed, but it isn't. That has all of the CherryPy-specific "stuff" in it. The base file (_cpwsgiserver) has no dependencies except for stdlib modules. > - Implements HTTP header length limit checking > - Implements HTTP body length limit checking > - Uses own logging handler These are not present in the base _cpwsgiserver. > - Subclasses SocketServer.BaseServer, not BaseHTTPServer.HTTPServer > - Therefore does low-level socket mucking-about > - Provides 2 server implementations > - CherryHTTPServer > - PooledThreadServer Okay, now you're really looking in the wrong place. Ignore _cphttpserver; it's deprecated and has nothing to do with WSGI. Look at _cpwsgiserver and only _cpwsgiserver. > - Explicitly checks for KeyboardInterrupt exceptions > - PooledThreadServer has clean shutdown through Queue.Queue > messaging > - Does not detect hop-by-hop headers > - No demo application > > My gut feeling: too complex, works to hard to be > "production-ready", at the expense of readability. Look at the right code and see if your gut feeling changes. ;) Robert Brewer System Architect Amor Ministries [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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
