Hi all, i am about to release a new uWSGI wizard, but before committing it i would like to hear some comments or objections :)
Currently uWSGI supports 3 configuration file format: XML INI YAML and 8 "magic" extensions that will setup the server with standard options .wsgi (will load a .wsgi script) .py (will load a python script, not as a module) .psgi (will load a psgi script) .pl (will load a perl script) .ru (will load a rackup script) .rb (will load a ruby script) .lua (will load a Lua script) .ws (will load a Lua wsapi script) So i think it would be better to reduce the uWSGI wizard at a simple text input field that will take one of this file. The code will read the file extensions and if it is one of the 3 configuration files, it will parse them searching for the "socket" option and (eventually) the mountpoints. If "socket" is not specified the wizard will bind to an automagically choose a port (as now). Automagically bind will happen for magic extensions (in addition -M option will be added) Notes: YAML parsing requires the python yaml module that could be not available in the system, so i will insert a check that will not show .yml extension in the form if it s not available. Should uWSGI logging be disabled by default if not specified in config files ? Without config files uWSGI will spawn a single worker. What do you think about setting the number of processes based on the number of cpus in the system ? (a ncpu*2 should be a good default value) The newer uWSGI codebase contains a new option "manage-script-name" that will manage suburl-application mapping itself (without the help of the webserver). I think it could be better to disable mountpoint parsing in case it is specified and simply "mount" the uWSGI source under / Thanks for your attention -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
