[Web-SIG] Re: Preferred set of WSGI servers

[Jacob Smullyan]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:53:30AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> I can imagine a good setup for hosts being one based on forking per-user 
> processes, which is adaptive primarily to scale down -- e.g., a largely 
> dorman app could have 1 or even 0 processes running (at 0 it becomes 
> similar to CGI, but presumably the process would stay around for some 
> time to respond to subsequent requests).  The "scaling down" scenario I 
> often think about would be a email contact form -- one of those things 
> that has to be an app, can be implemented and deployed separately from 
> other aspects of the site, and yet it's clear waste of resources to keep 
> a process always around to respond to such requests.  Though it's 
> actually someplace where CGI would work just fine; but lets say you 
> don't want to educate the developer about when they might want to use 
> other deployment strategies (which is a rather complex discussion 
> really, that would be better avoided by providing one really good 
> strategy and telling everyone to use it).

Why prefer forking to threads in this case?

-- 
Jacob Smullyan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20050429/551e00b0/attachment-0001.pgp