Is httpdapy ready for primetime?

[Erno Kuusela]

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 10:40:24 +0000 (GMT), Oleg Broytmann
<phd at phd.russ.ru> wrote:
>On 24 Oct 1999, Erno Kuusela wrote:
>> hmm, are you using PyApache (instead of vanilla CGI) because
>> of speed?
[..]
>   Not only because of speed, but also because of resources - Apache does
>not need to fork off CGI, and this is big advantage for busy server.

yeah, i guess this is indeed an advantage to a certain extent. but, i
think memory is the most significant resource here, and PyApache
doesn't save much there. it still has to load the same python
interpreter as the cgi program, and cgi's get the same advantage of a
shared text segment of the python interpreter as PyApache.

but cgi's do cost open files and processes ofcourse.

>> httpdapy seems to be very fast, (10-100x faster than CGI or PyApache in
>
>   But it is too incompatible. It requires to write its own modules, where
>PyApache just run standard CGIs.

yes. but it also more flexible than cgi's as it interfaces with the
apache api.

you can also emulate cgi's, httpdapy can build a cgi environment
(httpdapi.RequestHandler.build_cgi_env() & .hook_stdout()) so you can use the
cgi module with it.

> What if you and I would get a server whoose
>sysadmin wouldn't not allow to use these modules? My CGIs will run just fine
>under standard python interpreter, what about httpdapy CGIs?

httpdapy and PyApache both require you to load a 3rd-party apache
module so to use either of them, you need the cooperation of
the sysadmin.

it would probably be quite easy to write something that emulates
cgi's transparently. perhaps httpdapy would become more popular
if something like this was included with it...

  -- erno

-- 
"The new Intel Linux Gigabit driver is great news for Linux
customers who need high speed connectivity to drive their
e-business," added Phil Hester, chief technology officer, IBM
Personal Systems Group.