But is a instruction from MS... so how can be good (no! is not becuase is from MS: serving CGI this way is bad performance!)
I want to provide a good advice: My parent hosting company is given to me a *great* favor so I don't wanna put the support staff in troubles... This is for run in a shared hosting environemnt so must be bullet proof.
Because that, I think is impossible to demand a apache config here.
So, what are the alternatives? (excluding getting a linux box)
- Is FastCGI the rigth answer? - Existe a stable ISAPI dll?
On 24/05/2006, at 8:08 AM, mamc...@gmail.com wrote:
> re.
> So, what are the alternatives? (excluding getting a linux box)
you can run apache2.2 on windows quite well. if IIS has a proxy type solution you could just run apache2.2 on a separate port and have it handle the django side of things. otherwise you could have apache become the front-end webserver and then delegate the requests which require ISS to the proxy. something like in apache
I don't think the last option (swap the IIS for Apache) like to the hosting company. Remember: is a shared hosting server, already RUNNING websites and that thing (the test part is my job, but if that pass ok this must be a simply thing for theirs)...
The first option... that not mean that a URL become:
> I don't think the last option (swap the IIS for Apache) like to the > hosting company. Remember: is a shared hosting server, already RUNNING > websites and that thing (the test part is my job, but if that pass ok > this must be a simply thing for theirs)...
> The first option... that not mean that a URL become:
I read anything I get in google about IIS/FastCGI/Django deployment/WSGI and that stuff..
And I think is very confusing. Is not starnge then people fear to test python for web hosting: is far more dificult that any other web-enable language in the deploy side of the things...
I read the ActiveState site: Don't say anything.
The PyISAPI project not have anything about how configure the thing
About install ruby on IIS.. have some sense, but only have in return blank pages...
I check the WSGI support and maybe I can figure something but the requeriment to build a .asp page for EACH Url is insane... and the thing about replicate the url rewriting is not fun...
I only found people that say was able to use IIS with fastcgi or that say WSGI is the way for python but nothing concrete yet...
On 5/24/06, mamc...@gmail.com <mamc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I think is very confusing. Is not starnge then people fear to test > python for web hosting: is far more dificult that any other web-enable > language in the deploy side of the things...
In your own self-interest: you've said you plan to run commercial sites on this platform. You have a well-known scaleable and community-supported configuration (apache+mod_python) on the one hand, and an alpha- or beta-quality IIS shoehorn on the other hand. Is hosting such a significant cost that you couldn't switch to a better configuration?
The reason? I have everything now under this package, the databases, the sites, the expertise. I have almost zero experience in run linux and configure this...
Anyway, despite the fact if I go to Linux or not, I think that persue the option of easy to run under IIS can help python/django in the exposure side of the things...
Take in account that if something is under IIS is because run also ASP/ASP.NET and have some investiment here...
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 07:18:06PM -0000, mamc...@gmail.com <mamc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know...
> I have the option to get Linux as a fallback.
Shouldn't ever be a fallback, it should be the primary choice - unless you're fond of having your webserver compromised... (speaking from experience of setting up IIS and within 3 minutes of it being on the net with the latest updates it being backdoored and viruses roaming free...)
> The reason? I have everything now under this package, the databases, > the sites, the expertise. I have almost zero experience in run linux > and configure this...
All eggs, one basket? Sounds like a good way to run a business there.
> Anyway, despite the fact if I go to Linux or not, I think that persue > the option of easy to run under IIS can help python/django in the > exposure side of the things...
Not at the expense of doing more useful things, like finishing off for the 1.0 release!
> Take in account that if something is under IIS is because run also > ASP/ASP.NET and have some investiment here...
Or because the space is going cheap because no one else wants to touch it with a barge pole...
> Add another web server is hard to sell...
Really? I've not noticed that, but the I'm a single user and have 3 web servers in different places.
I've done it. It works fine. And then I woke up and installed Apache and turned off the IIS service.
Note that if you are stuck on Windows, Apache + mod_python + MySQL + Django works very well. I run that at work and do a lot of my personal Django development on that and then just "svn up" and "service httpd restart" on my Linux box to roll out changes.