I put together a first stab at this at https://github.com/lincolnloop/django-production. Feedback is appreciated!
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 1:34 PM pe...@lincolnloop.com <p...@lincolnloop.com> wrote: > I hadn't seen django-simple-deploy. At first glance, it looks interesting, > but more platform-specific than what I was thinking. > > I'll play around with creating a third-party app that encapsulates some of > these thoughts and see where I end up. > > Thanks for your time and feedback! > > On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-6 carlton...@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Hey Pete. >> >> Yes, there can be a lot of steps... (and trouble is every one has a >> different opinion once you get to specifics :) >> >> django-webserver looks good β in a similar ballpark to what I had in >> mind, yes, but I'd probably not want to bundle the options for each server >> myself, as that seems a lot to maintain over time... (Better to outsource >> to the individual projects no?) >> >> Have you seen what Eric Matthes is doing with django-simple-deploy? >> >> https://github.com/ehmatthes/django-simple-deploy >> >> I really like the idea: in an opinionated way, it applies the project >> changes you need to deploy (and it's plugable so folks could provide a >> *template* for their own flavour of deployment if they wanted, which is >> kind of important given the number of options in the landscape, even if you >> only to *ship* a beginner option.) >> >> Tim Allen also recently raised improving the Django project template, >> which I think is related here. (That's on my list too: async this QTR, then >> hoping to take on Adam's proposal to modernise the Request object for the >> end of year, then π€ swinging back here for "OK, what does it look like, >> what can we do?" after that: there's a bunch of related tickets around >> #21978 that it would be very sweet if we could clear up...) >> >> I think all these thoughts are really pursuable outside of core in the >> very short run, even if the goal is to merge them β it's much easier to >> experiment that way, and then say, "This worked". >> >> Anyhow, other than a "I've been thinking along these lines", and a >> generally positive emote, I don't have too much more concrete at this >> stage. >> π >> C. >> >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 19:00, Peter Baumgartner <pe...@lincolnloop.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the additional background Carlton! I like the idea of >>> having some sort of protocol that folks can follow to make >>> ready-to-use Django server packages (django-webserver [1] is in the >>> same vein), but I'd strive for more. pip install + INSTALLED_APPS is >>> great, but getting to production with that approach can feel like >>> death by a thousand paper cuts. Do that with gunicorn, whitenoise, >>> dj-database-url, etc. and it ends up being a laundry list of things >>> that, in my experience, people rarely get right on the first try and >>> just result in frustration. >>> >>> It seems like part of the challenge here is reaching parity with the >>> current runserver command, but is that necessary? Running `runserver >>> --dev` locally and getting dev features like autoreloading and then >>> having `runserver` use a different server for a deployed app doesn't >>> seem unreasonable. >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/lincolnloop/django-webserver >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:14 AM Carlton Gibson >>> <carlton...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey Pete. >>> > >>> > Yes... this is a good one. >>> > >>> > It's difficult to see how we can even have an ASGI runserver in core, >>> simply because there's no SimpleServer equivalent as there is for WSGI, and >>> it's not clear one is on the card. (HTTP is getting **more** complex, and I >>> can't see Python bringing such into the standard library.) >>> > So we have to use a third-party dependency for that. >>> > >>> > For the Channels v4 update (in progress now) I'm moving the runserver >>> command to the Daphne package. This was because folks wanted to use >>> Channels without the Daphne/Twisted dependency. >>> > >>> > See: https://github.com/django/daphne/pull/429 >>> > >>> > tl;dr β it came out pretty clean TBH. You pip install daphne, then add >>> "daphne" at the top of INSTALLED_APPS. (There's a system check to make sure >>> you're not fighting staticfiles.) >>> > >>> > On the back of that I don't see why servers (any servers) can't >>> provide a runserver command (or a django-* mini-package to go with it) and >>> offer what they offer in development as well as production. (Obviously that >>> all needs writing but it's just a management command.) >>> > >>> > Related is strategising the reloader. >>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/30213 >>> > >>> > We could then host *Protocols* β "Your runserver should do this", >>> "Implement this for your reloader", and so on β and (maybe) (slowly) >>> replace built-in options here with either optional dependencies (pip >>> install django["daphne"]) or recommendations to get going. (pip install >>> django["starter"] maybe). β I don't know β we seem a long way from that. (I >>> don't suppose wsgiref is going anywhere too soon is it?) >>> > >>> > But to cut back to your point, I don't know that we need to >>> **include** a server β just make it easy to get going. These days pip >>> install + a line in INSTALLED_APPS doesn't seem too much to ask (I think.) >>> > >>> > Was it really 4 years ago Tom left that comment on #21978 π³ (We'd >>> finally close this as wontfix: Django doesn't ship a webserver.) >>> > >>> > Does that fit in your view, or would that scenario not be good enough? >>> > >>> > Kind Regards, >>> > >>> > Carlton >>> > >>> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 16:56, Peter Baumgartner <pe...@lincolnloop.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi all! I'd like to re-open the discussion around >>> >> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/21978 >>> >> >>> >> As a "batteries included" framework, Django kind of leaves people to >>> >> fend for themselves when it comes to deployment. This makes it harder >>> >> than necessary for a developer to go from works-on-my-laptop to >>> >> works-on-the-internet. The docs here are great, but also daunting to a >>> >> newcomer https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/howto/deployment/ >>> >> >>> >> I'd love to see Django provide some sane defaults that people can use >>> >> to deploy a site without having to make a bunch of decisions they >>> >> don't totally understand. >>> >> >>> >> I have two thoughts on how it could be handled: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Similar to the template backends. You get Django's template system >>> >> by default, but you're welcome to swap in Jinja2. I don't believe >>> >> there is a one-size-fits-all webserver, but probably a >>> >> one-size-fits-most. >>> >> 2. Similar to cache/database backends. You define the backend you want >>> >> to use and Django makes some sane choices for you and allows you to >>> >> serve the site via some common `manage.py` command. >>> >> >>> >> For the first option, Gunicorn is a popular choice, but afaik it does >>> >> not work on Windows. Waitress [1] is an interesting option for WSGI >>> >> serving and daphne exists for ASGI. Whitenoise is a reasonable choice >>> >> for serving static files. It doesn't yet support ASGI, but there has >>> >> been some activity on that front [2]. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks! >>> >> >>> >> [1] https://pypi.org/project/waitress/ >>> >> [2] https://github.com/evansd/whitenoise/pull/359 >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAC6K9zk5PmcxYWXRdvco1pWXnO%2BHoYoYHf0pg5Mw%3DgmdefZArg%40mail.gmail.com >>> . >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. >>> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAJwKpyTSGPJW%2BmdUADW8eBYaXakesHG9H9dkSzhLxWnCpBdH6A%40mail.gmail.com >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. >>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAC6K9zmVDKcpM%3Dc9tyhrp2_K_dzLH5S9zMJcZSXduF9NkcoCKA%40mail.gmail.com >>> . >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/493f7f12-541c-4e12-ac25-0fd341ce2dc2n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/493f7f12-541c-4e12-ac25-0fd341ce2dc2n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAC6K9zkoPhh4G5-pxaTLuV5P1uR0PN_YyZ%2BUhBUk2CMutaO%3D4A%40mail.gmail.com.
