On Aug 22, 2:48 pm, Didip Kerabat <[email protected]> wrote:
> From my experience both are not ridiculously hard to deploy. Even
> though pylons have more options. It's a hard sell on that one, i
> think. On the other hand, isn't django having problem with wsgi?
Care to elaborate on what supposed problems Django has with WSGI
rather than leaving a cloud of doubt with no explanation?
FWIW, hosting Pylons on anything besides Paste HTTP server can also be
a problem in some cases. This is because certain setup steps for
logging expected by Pylons applications are embedded in Paste HTTP
server where they should not really be. This means that those magic
steps have to be some how duplicated when using alternate WSGI hosting
mechanisms. Such steps aren't though even documented in Pylons
documentation, unless that has changed since last time I looked.
So, in that respect, as a self contained WSGI application/component,
Pylons isn't actually a good WSGI citizen.
Part of the problem here is that there is no standardised model for
deployment of WSGI applications. WSGI defines the interface, but
doesn't cover the deployment of that in a standard way such that there
is one story for all hosting solutions. As a consequence, all Python
web applications using WSGI to adapt to the underlying web server have
their own caveats and extra things you need to do. Things can get
worse again when you are trying to plug a WSGI application as a
component into another application structure.
Graham
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
