Of course, not couting Cherrypy which officially _is_ for production
use, but many people look down on it.
Or Paste, but it's hardly performant. Just mentioning it for
completness sake. ;) All of my production deployments utilize
multi-process WSGI<->FastCGI and on-disk sockets.
After the changes I'm making to marrow.server.http[1] tonight it may be
easier to back-port it to support WSGI 1 (PEP 333). I'm mentioning
this because in my tests m.s.http handles C10K, is able to process >
10Krsecs at C6K or so, is fully unit tested, and has complete
documentation. It hasn't been -around- long enough to be classified
"stable", but it supports HTTP/1.1, Python 2.6+, and Python 3.1+ fully.
;)
Unfortunately for most people, it currently only supports PEP 444[2]
(with modifications[3]) and, soon, my draft rewrite[4].
Hell, creating a middleware-based adapter from WSGI 1 to my version of
PEP 444 should be relatively straight-forward, considering the same
incompatibility that bjoern takes exception to (the writer function
returned by start_response, or rather, the lack of it).
- Alice.
[1] http://bit.ly/fLfamO
[2] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0444/
[3] http://bit.ly/fRyMJ2
[4] http://bit.ly/e7rtI6
^ Bit.ly'd because of stupidly long GitHub URLs.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web.py" 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/webpy?hl=en.
