Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-29 Thread Steven Armstrong
On 04/29/05 03:38, Mark Rees wrote: > On 4/29/05, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's the full set of WSGI-enabled servers I'd like to see (and in >> some way encorporate into Paste, of course): >> >> * CGI gateway (done: not sure of canonical location) >> * Simple threaded HTTP serve

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-29 Thread Rene Dudfield
Supporting fastcgi is useful for two reasons. Supporting fastcgi so that you can be called by another httpd, eg apache, or lighttpd. Some people allready use fastcgi to call php, python or ruby on rails apps. Supporting it to call php, or ruby on rails apps. This way, twisted could run .php fil

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-29 Thread Ian Bicking
James Y Knight wrote: On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: twisted.web2 supports: HTTP, HTTPS, CGI, and I wrote SCGI yesterday and will commit it this weekend. FastCGI looks like a complicated protocol, so it'll probably be a bit harder than SCGI to implement. Is there actually a rea

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-29 Thread Shannon -jj Behrens
The reloading problem is a tough one, and Aquarium went through a lot of iterations before it came to a "good solution". Now days, I have a property which tells what types of modules I'm interested in reloading. Then, if any module is stale, I reload all of those modules. This takes care of case

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-29 Thread James Y Knight
On Apr 28, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Bicking wrote: twisted.web2 supports: HTTP, HTTPS, CGI, and I wrote SCGI yesterday and will commit it this weekend. FastCGI looks like a complicated protocol, so it'll probably be a bit harder than SCGI to implement. Is there actually a reason to support it as w

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-28 Thread Rene Dudfield
On 4/29/05, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the full set of WSGI-enabled servers I'd like to see (and in > some way encorporate into Paste, of course): > > * CGI gateway (done: not sure of canonical location) > * Simple threaded HTTP server (done: wsgiutils) > * mod_python (?) > *

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-28 Thread Jacob Smullyan
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:02:31PM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: > For the forking server, I really have no idea. There's several out > there, but I don't know about all the features that are desirable or > implemented. Several of the servers don't speak HTTP. I can't make > any specific criticisms,

Re: [Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-28 Thread Mark Rees
On 4/29/05, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the full set of WSGI-enabled servers I'd like to see (and in > some way encorporate into Paste, of course): > > * CGI gateway (done: not sure of canonical location) > * Simple threaded HTTP server (done: wsgiutils) > * mod_python (?) Ther

[Web-SIG] Preferred set of WSGI servers

2005-04-28 Thread Ian Bicking
Here's the full set of WSGI-enabled servers I'd like to see (and in some way encorporate into Paste, of course): * CGI gateway (done: not sure of canonical location) * Simple threaded HTTP server (done: wsgiutils) * mod_python (?) * ISAPI (done: http://isapi-wsgi.python-hosting.com/) * Zope product