On 3 July 2011 16:44, Hanno Schlichting <ha...@hannosch.eu> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Chris McDonough <chr...@plope.com> wrote:
> > Zope still needs to the virtual host monster (or something like it) even
> > with the WSGI publisher; there's nothing equivalent in the WSGI world
> > (unless you could repoze.vhm, which is essentially just the virtual host
> > monster, and probably doesn't need to live in middleware; no one uses it
> > except people who use repoze.zope2).
> I'm expecting us to use repoze.vhm. But I've left the VHM in the code,
> so it's easy to install one if you still need it. For some time I
> expect Plone to install a VHM as part of its installation process.
> > I don't have any skin in this game, but FTR, Mike Bayer isn't feeling
> > all that confident about Beaker's sessioning component (or so he has
> > told me). Beaker was originally made as a caching component, and had
> > sessioning jammed into it quite late; nobody is really maintaining the
> > sessioning component of it now.
> Well, if I can choose between modern unmaintained code from Mike Bayer
> and stone-age unmaintained code from Zope, it's still an easy choice
> And looking at the basics of what Beaker does here, it's still much
> more useful and of better quality than what we have in Zope 2.
> If there's any other non-framework-specific session machinery out
> there, we could use that as well. But I think most other stuff is tied
> into Django.
FWIW, we have a high-performance, high-load application in production on
Plone 4 with collective.beaker relying heavily on sessions, and I'm not
aware of any problems with it. We use the memcached backend across two
physical servers and a large number of Zope clients.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -