On Nov 21, 10:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 21, 1:37 pm, BartlebyScrivener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 20, 3:39 pm, Graham Dumpleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > This only holds if actually hosted on Apache. As Django these days > > > supports WSGI interface there is nothing to stop it being run with > > > other hosting solutions that support WSGI. So, you could host it under > > > paster or CherryPy WSGI servers. You could even run it under CGI if > > > you were really desperate using a CGI-WSGI adapter. So, it isn't > > > strictly correct to say it is as a multiprocess framework specifically > > > for mod_python, although the developers will admit in the first > > > instance that they didn't design the internals with multithreading in > > > mind. That said, there aren't believed to be any multithreading issues > > > in Django itself at this time. > > > > People keep pushing this barrow about the GIL and multithreading being > > > a huge problem, when in the context of Apache it is isn't, at least > > > not to the degree people make out. The reason for this is that when > > > using worker MPM it sill acts as a multi process web server even > > > though each process is also multithreaded. Within those worker MPM > > > child processes there is also a lot going on that doesn't involve > > > Python code nor the GIL, for example initial request process and > > > serving up of static files etc. > > > > Result is that the Python GIL is no impediment when using Apache on > > > UNIX to making good use of multiple processors or cores, even when > > > Apache worker MPM is used. > > > I understand about a fifth of this exchange but I'm glad it's here so > > I can follow links and search on the terminology. I couldn't tell from > > earlier posts if mod_python was good or bad. > > Version 3.3 of mod_python fixed up a lot of issues that existed with > older versions of mod_python. There are still a lot of issues in > mod_python unfixed. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON > > In the main people will not run into these issues, of if they do, the > incidence of them causing a direct or significant impact is low, or > with people just tolerating the problems. > > If you want to be where hosting with Apache is heading, then look at > mod_wsgi (http://www.modwsgi.org) instead. People will say I am biased > because I wrote it, but I was also the main person who did the more > recent work on fixing up mod_python and am more aware than others of > what problems still exist in mod_python. > > To be frank, unless some white knight comes along and dives into > mod_python and fixes up the remaining issues, then you probably will > not see any significant future updates to mod_python and it will just > stagnate. I certainly will not be devoting much time to mod_python any > more. > > Part of the problem with mod_python is that the code base has grown > over time and is long overdue for a complete rethink, which is in part > what mod_wsgi was about, ie., making the code and configuration a lot > simpler and safer for use in web hosting environments. > > Thus mod_wsgi takes aspects of what mod_python does, combining it with > aspects of how FASTCGI solutions work. This gives the option of > embedding a Python application in Apache for maximum speed, or using > daemon processes as means of being able to better separate multiple > applications. > > Most importantly, mod_wsgi supports WSGI directly, making it > reasonably trivial to run any Python web framework or application > which supports the WSGI standard. > > > The Django book says: "Apache with mod_python currently is the most > > robust setup for using Django on a production server." > > > Is that true? > > I would say that that is now debatable. Overall mod_wsgi is probably a > better package in terms of what it has to offer. Only thing against > mod_wsgi at this point is peoples willingness to accept something that > is new in conjunction with Linux distributions and web hosting > companies being slow to adopt new packages. > > Various people are quite happily using mod_wsgi. Users of mod_wsgi > range from people trying to run it in memory constrained VPS systems, > right up to major sites serving up to between 3-4 million hits a day. > > There have been a few odd things come up since the initial release > which have since been fixed, but the core is showing itself to be very > solid. > > Graham
Thanks everyone for the response. From the posts I understand that Django and pylons are the best. By searching the net earlier I got the same information that Django is best among the frameworks so I downloaded it and I found it very difficult to configure. I referred the djangobook. Is pylons better in terms of performance and ease of study compared to Django. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
