> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack L
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 11:43 AM
>
> If it's for a service that just runs all the time once it's set up,
> fastcgi+lighttpd is not bad at all. Setting it up is an one time
> effort.
>
> If you want a more portable solution, just like using an
> embed-able server jetty in solr, you can use a more efficient
> async Python web server (e.g. the one in cherrypy) and call
> PyLucene right from inside your own server. Not sure how much
> load it can handle but the bottleneck should be in PyLucene,
> and because it's one Python process, it won't run on multiple
> processors. If you want to use more processors, lighttpd +
> multiple Python fastcgi servers would be the way to go.
>
> Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 10:12:22 AM, you wrote:
>
> > You know, I've never really considered FastCGI for anything before,
> > but that doesn't sound like a bad idea. Still not as
> simple as deploy
> > and run, since there are still two pieces (FastCGI/PyLucene and
> > lighttpd), but possibly simpler (and possibly faster) than apache.
I had actually embedded jetty in my Lucene search app before I switched to
PyLucene. Now I'm using python's standard library class BaseHTTPServer
(which I loathe), since my project hasn't neared production status yet.
Thanks to the helpful pointers on this list, I've been learning of many new
possibilities that I hadn't stumbled across before. The grassyknoll page
led me to Colubrid, which led me to the WSGI PEP and James, which led me to
Medusa, as well as a handful of light templating engines. Some additional
googling also led me to this explanation of tying together lighttpd,
FastCGI, and WSGI:
http://cleverdevil.org/computing/24/python-fastcgi-wsgi-and-lighttpd
So, plenty of reading materiels for today. :)
Thanks, all!
-ofer
_______________________________________________
pylucene-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/pylucene-dev
