On Aug 8, 2010, at 2:35 PM, mwolfe02 wrote: > According to the web2py book, routes.py should not be used in > production environment (http://web2py.com/book/default/chapter/04? > search=lighttpd). Instead, Apache/lighttpd web server rewrite is > suggested. > > I assumed this was due to some overhead that using routes.py would > incur. However, massimo's response in this post from January (http:// > groups.google.com/group/web2py/browse_thread/thread/39e72dc4a68f33a1) > seems to suggest that's not the case. His response to the question, > Why is routes.py not preferred? "No reason. No overhead." > > If that's the case, then that's great news. I would much rather > rewrite my urls inside web2py. > > If there is overhead involved, how does it compare to whatever > overhead may be involved with Django's urls.py? Is there a > fundamental difference between how the two frameworks implement url > rewriting (other than the fact that it is required in Django and > optional in web2py)?
The reason (I think) is that Apache can serve certain static files and the like directly, without invoking web2py at all. It's not the overhead of using routes.py; it's the overhead of having web2py serve stuff that it doesn't need to. There might be more to it than that.
