web2py could support both but the benefits get lost quickly. web2py is
designed to be simple, asking the user to pick which bundled web server
they would like to use is too much in my opinion.
Short or Tall?
Caf or Decaf?
Sugar?
Milk? (steamed?)
Cinnamon?
For here or To-go?
How would you like your web2py today?
On 3/20/2010 12:39 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
Vasile Ermicioi, put in a vote for Rocket to be included in web2py because I'm
in the web2py community and there is still plenty of room for Rocket to be
optimized (which I noted).
I like the idea of built-in servers as plugins (not formally, but the general
idea of supporting more than one in a simply configured way). The downside is
that we won't have as focused testing of any one server, but it's compensated
for by how much easier it would be to include a new server in the release
without running the risk of breaking existing installations.
As I've said, I don't think that ultimate performance need be a high priority
for the built-in server; rather, ease of use and rock-solid stability are the
priorities. And I think I like relying on the SSL package.
My inclination: enable easy server switching. Keep CherryPy the default for at
least one more release, but make Rocket and sneaky easy to ask for from at
startup. That'll give those of us who are interested easy access to Rocket in a
low-risk way. And then at some point, possibly very soon, switch the default to
Rocket, retaining an easy option for the others as a fallback.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
