Well.. I think that it's more easy integrate a web2py installer in the cherokee assistant, that at reverse. Maybe, just programming the assistant in cherokee would be an excellent point.
I'm not using cherokee in daily production, but I'm a admire the work at this webserver since two years ago. The assistants and the web admin are fantastic. On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:50 PM, blackthorne <[email protected]>wrote: > A second step would be to bundle PostgresSQL with web2py + cherokee. > > I'm a dreamer... > > On May 18, 2:46 pm, blackthorne <[email protected]> wrote: > > I may no have been as clear as I wanted. > > First, this is not a Python / C / whatever issue. We like web2py and > > being pythonic, nothing changes. This is the application layer. The > > way it's served, wether it is web or telnet or something else it's > > another layer. There is absolutely no limitation on running different > > layers using different programming languages. I may be wrong but I > > believe that currently web2py just features a webserver to support its > > web based ide and testing. In no way you are suggested to deploy > > web2py with cherrypy or its new web server for a serious production > > environment. Instead, you are suggested to run it on Apache, > > lighthttpd and cherokee, things like that (as well as you have sqlite > > by default, but postgressql/... support for other ecosystems). > > Second, because these are different layers, you keep all the freedom. > > You can run web2py with cherokee using Python or in jython, Pypy if > > you can..., no glitches. I don't see a reason to make a difference, > > just because the web server as a different logo or uses other > > programming language. > > Third, I am not suggesting anything against the current model, and by > > no means I want to end it, I'm talking about a new option, something > > like what you have with Apache, MySQL, PHP -> MAMP/WAMP/LAMP. So > > beginners and advanced users can be happy together... > > > > On May 18, 1:47 pm, Timothy Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that Cherokee is an impressive server. I think the main reason > > > for not including it is it's non-Pythonic nature. web2py would have to > > > incorporate a formal build process (something it does not current have) > > > for Windows and OSX. It's hard to find a recent Windows build of > > > Cherokee right now as is. This would also remove the ability for > web2py > > > to run on Jython and Pypy (does it currently run on Pypy?). > > > > > Currently, web2py is completely Python. It only relies on python > > > modules. To move beyond that is a significant step that would add > > > magnitudes of complexity to maintain the same level of features for a > > > little performance gain and a pretty server interface. > > > > > web2py advocates that advanced users should use the web-server that > best > > > fits their needs, but maintains a built-in server with an easy > interface > > > for beginners. > > > > > -tim > > > > > On 5/18/2010 7:12 AM, blackthorne wrote: > > > > > > hi > > > > > > I don't want to fill this groups with ideas, mainly with ideas that > > > > will never see light. Anyway, if someone has more free time than me, > > > > you may consider it. > > > > I was checking a screencast on the awesome Cherokee web server with > > > > it's great web interface and thinking how cool would it be to have a > > > > bundle of cherokee with web2py deployed. Actually, cherokee it's > > > > prepared for that. It has a set of wizards so you can easily deploy > > > > frameworks like this ( > http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_ror.html > > > > ). > > > > A good integration of these things could allow you the full cycle of > > > > work since the download of the required tools, development, test, > > > > deploy just using a web browser available on any device these days! > > > > > > See it working athttp://www.cherokee-project.com/screencasts.html. >
