On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Michele Simionato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 6, 12:57 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers > > > Michele Simionato a écrit : > > > > I looked at the source code and it seems fine to me, but I have > > > not used it directly, not stressed it. I need a > > > production-level WSGI session middleware and I wonder what the > > > players are (for instance how Beaker does compare with flup?) > > > Can't tell, but I'd trust the Pylons team on this kind of choices. > > They're doing good job so far AFAICT. > > Probably Beaker works well, but it is certainly NOT doing things > as Eby recommends: > > http://dirtsimple.org/2007/02/wsgi-middleware-considered-harmful.html > > BTW, I know that Eby is asking opinions about WSGI 2.0 on the > WSGI SIG and interested people may have a look there. > > Michele Simionato
I think that Beaker is a Mako dependency. So if you use Mako, Beaker is not an option :) G
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
