Python web frameworks

[joe jacob]

On Nov 21, 10:15 am, Graham Dumpleton <Graham.Dumple... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:37 pm, BartlebyScrivener <bscrivene... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 3:39 pm, Graham Dumpleton <Graham.Dumple... at gmail.com>
> > 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.