On 10/19/07, Laszlo Marai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So the java solutions need more configuration work but they might be more > flexible in some cases. And don't forget that you're comparing a set of > components (java) against a full stack (django). The configuration work > can be alleviated by pre-assembling a full stack from java components. > There are projects that do just that (e.g. appfuse).
It's worth pointing out that in the Python world, WSGI[1] is meant to provide a single, interoperable standard for web applications; the idea is that no matter what framework you're using (or even if you're not using a framework), if you speak WSGI you'll be able to run under any WSGI-compliant web server and talk to any other WSGI applications or use any available WSGI middlewares. Django speaks WSGI well enough to run as a WSGI application, though there is at least one wart I know of that we need to iron out (dealing with SCRIPT_NAME so that Django can be arbitrarily rooted inside a site without needing to do any special handling of URLs). I'd also like at some point to add at least basic support for Django to act as a WSGI server to make it easier to mix and match things (it'd be fairly straightforward to write a generic view which hosts a WSGI application, I think). [1] http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0333/ -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
