|
List Info
Thread: Aspen 0.6 -- turning towards 1.0 w/ daemonization
|
|
| Aspen 0.6 -- turning towards 1.0 w/
daemonization |
|
2006-12-08 19:51:50 |
Greetings, program!
I just released v0.6 of Aspen, a Python web server:
http
://www.zetadev.com/software/aspen/#the-goods
This release features daemonization support, with a nice
command
line UI:
$ aspen start # daemon started
$ aspen stop # daemon stopped
$ aspen
aspen starting on ('', 8080) # running in foreground
(Many thanks to Walter Dörwald for his ll.daemon module.)
With this release we are turning our attention away from
Aspen as
a development environment, and towards Aspen as a production
web
server. That means we are pretty much done messing with the
extension API, and will now concentrate on things like:
* configuration for production
* testing
* documentation
* security
* optimization
In particular, I'm excited to have a couple guys on the
mailing
list looking at optimization, with a patch already produced
that
may speed up static file serving by 5x. If you'd like to
help us
make a kickin' Python web server, now is the time to jump
in.
chad
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.
org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/bo
nd%40yahoo.com
|
|
| Aspen 0.6 -- turning towards 1.0 w/
daemonization |
|
2006-12-08 22:08:16 |
On 12/8/06, Chad Whitacre <chadzetaweb.com> wrote:
> Greetings, program!
Greetings, Chad!
snip...
> With this release we are turning our attention away
from Aspen as
> a development environment, and towards Aspen as a
production web
> server. That means we are pretty much done messing with
the
> extension API, and will now concentrate on things like:
>
> * configuration for production
A few questions:
Has there been any thought given to dealing with virtual
hosting?
Reverse proxy?
Since this is WSGI based, can I deploy it under mod_python
or say
fcgi? Or twisted?
Do you have any stats on how static performance is compared
with say
plain old apache?
-thanks
Matt
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIGpython.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.
org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/bo
nd%40yahoo.com
|
|
| Aspen 0.6 -- turning towards 1.0 w/
daemonization |
|
2006-12-09 00:22:51 |
|
Matt,
Thanks for your questions!
Has there been any thought given to dealing with virtual hosting?
Yes. I hope to implement that as an Aspen application. Basically, my idea is to put all virtually hosted websites in a directory, /usr/local/www say, and start a main Aspen process in that dir which would maintain an Aspen child process for each subdir/website. The main process would then proxy to its children based on the Host header. Waddya think?
Reverse proxy?
With Aspen in which role, the proxy or the origin server? The above is basically a reverse proxy (no?); Aspen could of course be proxied itself behind Apache or Varnish or whatever.
Since this is WSGI based, can I deploy it under mod_python or say
fcgi? Or twisted?
Do you have any stats on how static performance is compared with say
plain old apache?
There's a couple threads on this on the aspen-users list. The bottom line is that Aspen is, um, slower than Apache at serving static content.  You'll notice, though, that we do have a patch for this already (thanks Giorgi!), which may give us a 5x speed-up for static content. I haven't reviewed the patch yet, and would be interested in any review or benchmarks you could provide.
In general, the 1.0 release is focused on the API. If Aspen succeeds, I expect some parts will eventually be rewritten in C, but first things first.
Thanks again for your feedback!
chad
|
[1-3]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|