No FastCGI isn't a bad protocol. But it's not recommand to deploy Python Application's with FastCGI. FastCGI is good for deploying PHP or even sometimes Golang (but here, the plain Webserver is better). But! FastCGI is a low level protocol and WSGI tries to get rid of that. Flup is just a server/middleware that makes a WSGI based Application to a SCGI/FCGI one. It's never recommand to use a low level api, when you don't have to. Also people who deployed on FastCGI should change that behavior to mod_wsgi, and there are a shitload of hosters that already supporting mod_wsgi, so it's really not that easy to change your hoster.
Btw. the djangoproject also have a good list which lists some hosters: https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/DjangoFriendlyWebHosts Am Samstag, 20. Juli 2013 13:56:07 UTC+2 schrieb Some Developer: > > On 20/07/13 12:32, Christian Schmitt wrote: > > I would recommand to remove FastCGI. > > That's the thing i love with the Python Community. Remove depracted or > > obsolete things. > > > > The thing is, there are way more important things to do, than supporting > > a 'depracted' way to deploy. And it's really not that hard to get > > mod_wsgi with a httpd running. > > You could strip that down so easily and compile it, even on CentOS. > > The thing that people seem to be missing here is that FastCGI is not > obsolete. There is currently no other deployment technology that can > reasonably replace it for the people who make use of it (with the > possible exception of SCGI). > > FastCGI is essential in environments where websites are hosted that use > different languages and frameworks. WSGI is Python only and therefore > would require two deployment methods based on technology used increasing > maintenance overhead and ultimately cost. > > uWSGI is starting to get a few more plugins written for it for other > languages but it is still lacking somewhat (and when I have a couple of > days spare I may well work on adding some of what I need). > > Nor is FastCGI obsolete. People in the technology field suffer from a > problem were old = bad when in fact old means stability which is crucial > for important production sites. Flup may well have issues and I would be > more than happy to work on fixing those issues but lets not mistake > problems with Flup as problems with FastCGI itself. Flup is an > implementation. FastCGI is a protocol and the protocol is just fine. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
