Tres Seaver wrote:
Hash: SHA1

Jim Fulton wrote:
Stephan Richter wrote:


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.
What requirements?  If we have such requirements, I suggest we reevaluate them.
*We do not want to be in the server business!*

We have performance and reliability expectations which come from running
mission-critical applications.  Lots of the rest of the folks interested
in servers don't have those requirements (yet, anyway), and hence aren't
motivated to address them in their externally-maintained server

I find it impossible to believe that others don't have such
mission-critical requirements.

What is *worse* than maintaining our own server is trying to track
development on somebody else's, where their goals don't match ours.


> I'm
guessing that the amount of effort required to "maintain" the Zope2
server per month is less than the aggregate time spent by the community
reading this thread. ;)

Probably, if someone was actually maintaining it and *if* Zope3 was
using it.

If we find that WSGI is inferior to the Zope 2 server, then I certainly
think that abandoning our various Zope 3 efforts is a reasonable
alternative, although unattractive, since I'm not aware of anyone
actively maintaining the Zope 2 server. I'd much rather
leverage a larger effort.

Right now, we have no good basis for judging the server alternatives.


Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714  
Zope Corporation
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to