Python web development, really

Paul Rubin phr-n2003b at
Fri Jan 24 17:26:11 CET 2003

Jacob Smullyan <smulloni at> writes:
> As for caching, SkunkWeb is I believe very strong in this area, as it
> does have a very useful component cache, which stores component output
> on disk; and this cache can be controlled with considerable finesse,
> and furthermore with ease.  While access to a disk cache is not going
> to be as fast as access to memory, just as with the GIL lock issue,
> there are other ways of improving performance.  The convenience and
> controllability of the SkunkWeb cache is a huge advantage, as it can
> be utilized to the fullest with virtually no development effort.
> (Incidentally, if anyone feels strongly that SkunkWeb should be able
> to run in multi-threaded mode, feel free to submit patches :).

I'm not that crazy about threads either.  I don't understand why more
multi-process servers don't use shared memory instead of disk files,
or even (gak) SQL databases and worse.  Sometimes I wonder whether MPI
(the pseudo-shared memory used in scientific clusters like Beowulf)
might be an appropriate abstraction for programs like web servers.
There are very efficient MPI implementations that let processes on the
same machine communicate through shared memory, and can also let
processes on separate machines communicate through a LAN.

More information about the Python-list mailing list