On Mar 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Robert Brewer wrote:
> Jim Fulton wrote:
> > For some time, Zope has used a daemon-management tool
> > we wrote called zdaemon:
> >
> >http://www.python.org/pypi/zdaemon
> >
> > Ironically, this sort of tool isn't Python specific at all,
> > and the discussion high
On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Chad Whitacre wrote:
...
> Now, Jim: it looks like Zope still uses a Unix-y userland for
> INSTANCE_HOME, yes?
Yes, but I hate it. At Zope Corporation, We're moving away from it
for a number of reasons.
For development, it adds structure that isn't needed. A Zope
On Mar 3, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:
> Chad Whitacre wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> Thanks, Jim and Ian, for bringing this discussion online.
>>
>> I have two hesitations with Paste Deploy:
>>
>>1. The configuration syntax is really complex. I'm much more
>> comfortable with multiple si
On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Chad Whitacre wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > I'll summarize my recollections of a very useful discussion
> > that several of us had at PyCon 2007.
>
> Looks accurate to me, thanks.
>
>
> > - Ian will lead a server benchmark effort
>
> Where by "server," we mean core HTTP server
On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For production deployments, we (Zope Corporation) install files into
> the *real* Unix tree where site administrators want them. We'll
> typically have a deployment that includes a number of applications.
> The deployment will create directories i
On Mar 3, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Chad Whitacre wrote:
...
> > 1. Can we agree on a standard set of entry points so that WSGI
> > applications can be combined automatically? I think Paste
> > Deploy provides at least good start on this.
> >
> > You haven't commented on the entry points defined by Past
On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For production deployments, we (Zope Corporation) install files into
>> the *real* Unix tree where site administrators want them. We'll
>> typically have a deployment that includes a number o
On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't deploy to win32 and I don't know enough about win32 to
> answer. I expect though that, like Unix, a production deployment is
> going to look different than a development buildout. In any case,
> I'm pretty sure that the classic unix-mimi
On Saturday 03 March 2007 15:54:41 Ian Bicking wrote:
> Chad Whitacre wrote:
> > I suggest that a system with multiple simple config files is much
> > more scalable than a single complex config file syntax. Imagine
> > if all of Unix were configured using a single syntax!
>
> There's other cases wh
On Saturday 03 March 2007 11:08:24 Jim Fulton wrote:
>
> Anyway, I share this for your consideration. There are probably
> better tools out there than zdaemon and supervisor2, but I'm not
> aware of them. :) I'm curious what other people have found or use.
ll.daemon (http://www.livinglogic.de/Py
> ll.daemon (http://www.livinglogic.de/Python/daemon/index.html)
> seems to be a straightforward and very simple library for core
> daemon functionality.
I'm using this in Aspen, and I like it. Worth checking out.
chad
___
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:25:06PM -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> Well, it is something that needs to be considered though. We can't
> just close one eye and pretend that win32 does not exist.
Yes, I prefer to close two eyes!
--
Jacob Smullyan
___
We
On Saturday 03 March 2007 23:27:29 Chad Whitacre wrote:
> 3) Common web app server
>
> Without discouraging the first two efforts, I'd like to champion the
> third. Here would be my proposal:
>
> First, we define a "website" on the filesystem as a Unix-y userland
> with, at minimum, the following
Jim Fulton wrote:
> For some time, Zope has used a daemon-management tool
> we wrote called zdaemon:
>
>http://www.python.org/pypi/zdaemon
>
> Ironically, this sort of tool isn't Python specific at all,
> and the discussion highlighted some non-Python tools, notably
> daemontools and runit, ne
On 3/5/07, Jacob Smullyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 02:25:06PM -0300, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> > Well, it is something that needs to be considered though. We can't
> > just close one eye and pretend that win32 does not exist.
>
> Yes, I prefer to close two eyes!
I seriou
On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Sidnei da Silva wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We don't deploy to win32 and I don't know enough about win32 to
>> answer. I expect though that, like Unix, a production deployment is
>> going to look different than a development buildout.
On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/5/07, Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> We don't deploy to win32 and I don't know enough about win32 to
> >> answer. I expect though that, like Unix, a production deployment is
> >> going to look different than a development buildo
Joseph Tate wrote:
> On Saturday 03 March 2007 15:54:41 Ian Bicking wrote:
>> Chad Whitacre wrote:
>>> I suggest that a system with multiple simple config files is much
>>> more scalable than a single complex config file syntax. Imagine
>>> if all of Unix were configured using a single syntax!
>> T
Chad Whitacre wrote:
>> >> >2. I'm not clear on how Paste Deploy's abstractions map to the
>> >> > filesystem. What does my website root look like?
>> >>
>> >> The way I have generally configured websites like this is like:
>> >>
>> >>[composite:main]
>> >>use = egg:Paste#urlmap
>
At 10:02 AM 3/5/2007 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
>Entry points add *a* mechanism to make those objects a bit more
>discoverable. Arguably, specifying an application via:
>eggname#entrypointname doesn't provide much advantage over simply
>specifying the dotted path to an object in a module.
Actually,
At 09:56 AM 2/9/2007 -0800, Titus Brown wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:10:00PM -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>-> Yeah, multiprocess should probably be set false there, and
>-> multithreadedness should depend on whether the ThreadingTCPServer or
>-> whatever it's called is mixed in. (HTTPServer
On Monday 05 March 2007 16:19:14 Ian Bicking wrote:
> Joseph Tate wrote:
> > I find that multiple files gives you a nice way to override defaults. As
> > long as the files are read in a way that's predictable and documentable,
> > and ultimately appear as if read from a single file (and possible
>
On Monday 05 March 2007 16:38:51 Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 10:02 AM 3/5/2007 -0500, Jim Fulton wrote:
> >Entry points add *a* mechanism to make those objects a bit more
> >discoverable. Arguably, specifying an application via:
> >eggname#entrypointname doesn't provide much advantage over simply
>
At 09:46 PM 3/5/2007 -0500, Joseph Tate wrote:
>Those using $4.95 hosting plans are only setting up one server, and will need
>something custom to their installation anyway, so "pydeploy" won't help them
>either. They'll be trying to install trac, some blogging software and then
>an arbitrary imag
24 matches
Mail list logo
