Simon,
Thanks for the reply.
I've got a bit of a philosophical problem with Aspen - the fact that it supports "five different development patterns". I'm interested in one and one-only: the ability to serve a WSGI application. All the other stuff that Aspen does is neat, but could be done instead using WSGI middleware. If Aspen was architected as a simple just-serves-up-WSGI-robustly server and an optional set of middleware for the five different patterns it would be a much more attractive option to me.
Hmmm, ok. Helpful feedback, thanks. Since I gave you a bad first impression w/ a screencast, I thought it might take another to convince you that Aspen isn't really that complicated:
http://tech.whit537.org/2006/12/screencast-django-aspen-stephane.html Let me know your thoughts.
The process monitoring thing is a really big issue for me though.
Now that's another story. I use daemontools some, mostly for the consistent interface it provides (and you're right that it's a pain to set up). However, the auto-restarting feature strikes me mostly as a band-aid for buggy daemons. :-)
I'm genuinely extremely interested in finding a robust pure-Python application server that I can use for Django stuff - but at the moment my priority is keeping my site up. Python needs an answer to Mongrel!
Others have indeed compared Aspen to Mongrel, although Aspen isn't written in C (yet?).
chad --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
