Chris Withers wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
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
implmentations.


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

Maybe they hand off the hard bits too Apache?

Some of them do, I'm sure.

Could we?

Sure, we already do by often having Apache or squid in front
of Zope.  There is also a mod_python WSGI server implementation.

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.

Does the Zope 2 server need that much work? It seems to do a pretty good job...

I don't know.  It does seem to do a pretty good job.  But I'm not aware of
any one else who's in a position to fix it if it breaks or needs to be
enhanced.

What's stopping Zope 3 from using it?

It would take some work to integrate with it.  I'm not sure how much.
Of course, someone could make it a WSGI server.  Otherwise,
one would have to integrate at a lower level.  It might not be that
hard. Or it might be.  I'd still rather leverage someone else's technology.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton           mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]       Python Powered!
CTO                  (540) 361-1714            http://www.python.org
Zope Corporation     http://www.zope.com       http://www.zope.org
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to