On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Graham Dumpleton<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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?
Django was made before WSGI and has had some trouble adapting to it. Using Django in a WSGI environment has required some significant hacking, and it seems that resolving these issues has not been a high priority for them because their native servers work just fine thank you. It comes out of their different philosophy. Django users/developers are happy if it works in its own separate world. Pylons/WSGI enthusiasts are obsessed with interoperability > 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. The logging setup needs some improvement but that's not a WSGI issue. WSGI doesn't address logging. I'll address the technical problem in another thread. > 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. WSGI has grown way beyond its original scope. And nobody knew what issues would arise with mod_wsgi because it didn't exist. I don't see how you can get around the fact that every web server or Apache module is unique. Not to mention every daemon manager on every platform. WSGI is just a Python protocol; it doesn't address those issues. -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
