On 19/07/13 01:31, Curtis Maloney wrote:
For those who are keen to keep support for FastCGI, would you be
interested in helping me develop/maintain a Pure Python
FastCGI->WSGI(Django-specific) publisher package?
I agree it's valuable to have, as many have said [and I believe all have
agreed] but
For those who are keen to keep support for FastCGI, would you be interested
in helping me develop/maintain a Pure Python FastCGI->WSGI(Django-specific)
publisher package?
I agree it's valuable to have, as many have said [and I believe all have
agreed] but to keep it in core is unmaintainable.
And
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Juan Luis Boya wrote:
> uWSGI + FastCGI: We should have nice docs about this.
as others have previously said, uWSGI isn't viable for everybody. is
there any other pure-python fcgi-wsgi server with reasonable
performance?
i think several people like to use gunic
I'm against deprecating FastCGI at all because it's the only cross
platform, language independent, minimally scalable standard for deploying
web applications in web servers (apart from HTTP proxy).
WSGI may be nice to Python developers, but the world doesn't end after
Python. Not all web server
