On 10/18/06 19:57, Steve M wrote:
> I've been following this and related threads with some interest. I
> think it would be nice to have a pure python (requiring no setup of,
> e.g., Apache) webserver included with Django that was more capable than
> the current Django development server. I recentl
I've been following this and related threads with some interest. I
think it would be nice to have a pure python (requiring no setup of,
e.g., Apache) webserver included with Django that was more capable than
the current Django development server. I recently stumbled across this:
http://pythonpast
I'm also of the opinion that Django can only benefit by making the
built-in development web server better.
If I can develop Django projects without the need to install Apache (or
other web server) and use SQLite, that's awesome. For static files I
can just use something like this:
(r'^(
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> I'm sure it could, but I'm almost certain it wont.
The only problem with this is that some kind of sites cannot be tested
with the development server.
If the site streams back the output and incrementally builds it then it
cannot for example read in the css even th
On 10/12/06, Rob Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > The development server is only single threaded. So one request at a
> > time. Since requests include each and every stylesheet, every image,
> > etc, that can be quite a number of requests per page.
>
> Can or wil
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> The development server is only single threaded. So one request at a
> time. Since requests include each and every stylesheet, every image,
> etc, that can be quite a number of requests per page.
Can or will this ever change? If I understand correctly, the base WSGI
we
just depends on what you're used to. I've not done lighttpd on windows, so I couldn't say. Since I had Apache, there didn't seem much reason to investigate and use Lighttpd+Flup on Windows.I use Lighttpd+Flup+Django on TextDrive, and it runs fine there - but that's a unix system and most of the pie
WoW thanks, I'll give it a try.
Is lighttpd setup more easy?
Picio
2006/10/11, Joseph Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've been using Apache+Mod_Python+Django on windows without any trouble at
> all. The biggest "trick" is to set the configuration to enable the
> mod_python module and pass requests t
I've been using Apache+Mod_Python+Django on windows without any trouble at all. The biggest "trick" is to set the configuration to enable the mod_python module and pass requests through to the right handler.
I don't know if it'll help you, but here's some of the example config pieces I use on my ow
Hello, I got the point thanks.
Which one is more easy to configure between
Apache + mod_python + django
and
Lighttpd +flup + fastcgi + django?
The platform will be a pIII 650 with windows2000 sp4, max user no. is 4.
Picio
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
006-10-10 at 12:01 +0200, Picio wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I saw in the official docs that It's not a good practice to use the
> > django embedded web server in any production envionment.
> > I have a little Intranet with 4 workstation and a home made server
> > (based
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:01 +0200, Picio wrote:
> Hello,
> I saw in the official docs that It's not a good practice to use the
> django embedded web server in any production envionment.
> I have a little Intranet with 4 workstation and a home made server
> (based on an old
Hello,
I saw in the official docs that It's not a good practice to use the
django embedded web server in any production envionment.
I have a little Intranet with 4 workstation and a home made server
(based on an old pc).
There are no reason to think about security in this LAN because It'
13 matches
Mail list logo
