On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:24, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Here is what I'd like to see.  I'd like to see someone get more involved
> in the WSGI effort.  A very specific thing I think is needed is a WSGI
> server benchmark that can be used to evaluate different WSGI servers for
> both functionality and performance.  This would benefit us and other
> projects.  We should use this to evaluate different WSGI servers
> to see which ones best meet our needs.  This would guide our decision
> whether to continue to try to support any of our existing server
> and might spur server developers to greater efforts and server
> improvements. I don't think this is a huge effort and certainly not a
> technically challenging one.  I think that a modest effort that tested some
> obvious things like speed of requests with large and small inputs and
> outputs, with varying levels of concurrency, measuring speed and resource
> consumption would probably spur contributions from others in the Python Web
> community.
> I would do this myself if I didn't have a number of other projects that
> I'm currently focused on.

I agree with your assessment. It is extremely difficult to figure out which 
WSGI server fulfills Zope's criteria. In fact, I would suspect that only 
ZServer (Zope 2 and 3 version) does, because noone else has such strong 
requirements. I would love to see such a profiling tool too, not only for 
testing servers, but applications as well. But I am also involved in too many 
other projects.

Stephan Richter
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to