I may no have been as clear as I wanted. First, this is not a Python / C / whatever issue. We like web2py and being pythonic, nothing changes. This is the application layer. The way it's served, wether it is web or telnet or something else it's another layer. There is absolutely no limitation on running different layers using different programming languages. I may be wrong but I believe that currently web2py just features a webserver to support its web based ide and testing. In no way you are suggested to deploy web2py with cherrypy or its new web server for a serious production environment. Instead, you are suggested to run it on Apache, lighthttpd and cherokee, things like that (as well as you have sqlite by default, but postgressql/... support for other ecosystems). Second, because these are different layers, you keep all the freedom. You can run web2py with cherokee using Python or in jython, Pypy if you can..., no glitches. I don't see a reason to make a difference, just because the web server as a different logo or uses other programming language. Third, I am not suggesting anything against the current model, and by no means I want to end it, I'm talking about a new option, something like what you have with Apache, MySQL, PHP -> MAMP/WAMP/LAMP. So beginners and advanced users can be happy together...
On May 18, 1:47 pm, Timothy Farrell <tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote: > I agree that Cherokee is an impressive server. I think the main reason > for not including it is it's non-Pythonic nature. web2py would have to > incorporate a formal build process (something it does not current have) > for Windows and OSX. It's hard to find a recent Windows build of > Cherokee right now as is. This would also remove the ability for web2py > to run on Jython and Pypy (does it currently run on Pypy?). > > Currently, web2py is completely Python. It only relies on python > modules. To move beyond that is a significant step that would add > magnitudes of complexity to maintain the same level of features for a > little performance gain and a pretty server interface. > > web2py advocates that advanced users should use the web-server that best > fits their needs, but maintains a built-in server with an easy interface > for beginners. > > -tim > > On 5/18/2010 7:12 AM, blackthorne wrote: > > > > > hi > > > I don't want to fill this groups with ideas, mainly with ideas that > > will never see light. Anyway, if someone has more free time than me, > > you may consider it. > > I was checking a screencast on the awesome Cherokee web server with > > it's great web interface and thinking how cool would it be to have a > > bundle of cherokee with web2py deployed. Actually, cherokee it's > > prepared for that. It has a set of wizards so you can easily deploy > > frameworks like this (http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_ror.html > > ). > > A good integration of these things could allow you the full cycle of > > work since the download of the required tools, development, test, > > deploy just using a web browser available on any device these days! > > > See it working athttp://www.cherokee-project.com/screencasts.html.
