> Juan, technically Django isn't a server at all...
>
Django is a web application framework whose operation consists on waiting
for HTTP requests from the network (encapsulated with WSGI) and replying
each one of them with a HTTP response. Call it what you want.
> whether it's sync, async,
> If you really want to get down and dirty with raw protocols have you
> considered an implementation that used epoll or kqueue for the
> networking? Combined with nginx as the front end HTTP server it should
> (theoretically) result in a huge increase in performance.
>
> Basing the work on o
>
> 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?
>
That exists and it's called flup. The code base is relatively small. What
about simply forking it to something li
On Friday, July 19, 2013 12:53:48 AM UTC+2, Javier Guerra wrote:
> i think several people like to use gunicorn for http-wsgi, if it (or
> something similar: flask? wep.py?, werkzeug?) supports fcgi, it could
> be the recommended fcgi solution.
>
flask, webpy, werkzeug: all of those use flup. g
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
I've posted a patch for runfcgi here:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20751
It includes documentation update and unit tests, for anyone interested, if
any.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this gr
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 11:20:10 AM UTC+2, Ramiro Morales wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Juan Luis Boya
> >
> wrote:
> >
> > When daemonize=false, it will set the umask for Django child
> > processes, effectively changing default permiss
They talk about there was a os.umask(0) and they created that option in
order to change it.
But I would like to know then, why was that `os.umask(0)` there in the
first place? What was it purpose?
On the other hand there is the confusion this option brings. Many people
think the option is inte
Hello people.
I was wondering what runfcgi's umask argument is meant to do. When I first
met it I though it would set the permissions mask for my fcgi socket.
runfgi's help told another thing instead:
umask to use when daemonizing, in octal notation (default 022).
And it is right. That's w
