[web2py] Idea on web server integration

[blackthorne]

hi

I don't want to fill this groups with ideas, mainly with ideas that
will never see light. Anyway, if someone has more free time than me,
you may consider it.
I was checking a screencast on the awesome Cherokee web server with
it's great web interface and thinking how cool would it be to have a
bundle of cherokee with web2py deployed. Actually, cherokee it's
prepared for that. It has a set of wizards so you can easily deploy
frameworks like this ( http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_ror.html
).
A good integration of these things could allow you the full cycle of
work since the download of the required tools, development, test,
deploy just using a web browser available on any device these days!

See it working at http://www.cherokee-project.com/screencasts.html .

[blackthorne]

P.S.: I am not saying to stop delivering web2py out of the box, this
would be an extra option...

On May 18, 1:12 pm, blackthorne <francisco....@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi
>
> I don't want to fill this groups with ideas, mainly with ideas that
> will never see light. Anyway, if someone has more free time than me,
> you may consider it.
> I was checking a screencast on the awesome Cherokee web server with
> it's great web interface and thinking how cool would it be to have a
> bundle of cherokee with web2py deployed. Actually, cherokee it's
> prepared for that. It has a set of wizards so you can easily deploy

> frameworks like this (http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_ror.html

[Timothy Farrell]

I agree that Cherokee is an impressive server. I think the main reason
for not including it is it's non-Pythonic nature. web2py would have to
incorporate a formal build process (something it does not current have)
for Windows and OSX. It's hard to find a recent Windows build of
Cherokee right now as is. This would also remove the ability for web2py
to run on Jython and Pypy (does it currently run on Pypy?).

Currently, web2py is completely Python. It only relies on python
modules. To move beyond that is a significant step that would add
magnitudes of complexity to maintain the same level of features for a
little performance gain and a pretty server interface.

web2py advocates that advanced users should use the web-server that best
fits their needs, but maintains a built-in server with an easy interface
for beginners.

-tim

[Jason Brower]

I personally see no problem with forking in that direction. Just as
Ubuntu is a fork of Debian. They can both help each other.
:)
Best Regards,
Jason Brower

[blackthorne]

I may no have been as clear as I wanted.
First, this is not a Python / C / whatever issue. We like web2py and
being pythonic, nothing changes. This is the application layer. The
way it's served, wether it is web or telnet or something else it's
another layer. There is absolutely no limitation on running different
layers using different programming languages. I may be wrong but I
believe that currently web2py just features a webserver to support its
web based ide and testing. In no way you are suggested to deploy
web2py with cherrypy or its new web server for a serious production
environment. Instead, you are suggested to run it on Apache,
lighthttpd and cherokee, things like that (as well as you have sqlite
by default, but postgressql/... support for other ecosystems).
Second, because these are different layers, you keep all the freedom.
You can run web2py with cherokee using Python or in jython, Pypy if
you can..., no glitches. I don't see a reason to make a difference,
just because the web server as a different logo or uses other
programming language.
Third, I am not suggesting anything against the current model, and by
no means I want to end it, I'm talking about a new option, something
like what you have with Apache, MySQL, PHP -> MAMP/WAMP/LAMP. So
beginners and advanced users can be happy together...

On May 18, 1:47 pm, Timothy Farrell <tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote:
> I agree that Cherokee is an impressive server.  I think the main reason
> for not including it is it's non-Pythonic nature.  web2py would have to
> incorporate a formal build process (something it does not current have)
> for Windows and OSX.  It's hard to find a recent Windows build of
> Cherokee right now as is.  This would also remove the ability for web2py
> to run on Jython and Pypy (does it currently run on Pypy?).
>
> Currently, web2py is completely Python.  It only relies on python
> modules.  To move beyond that is a significant step that would add
> magnitudes of complexity to maintain the same level of features for a
> little performance gain and a pretty server interface.
>
> web2py advocates that advanced users should use the web-server that best
> fits their needs, but maintains a built-in server with an easy interface
> for beginners.
>
> -tim
>
> On 5/18/2010 7:12 AM, blackthorne wrote:
>
>
>
> > hi
>
> > I don't want to fill this groups with ideas, mainly with ideas that
> > will never see light. Anyway, if someone has more free time than me,
> > you may consider it.
> > I was checking a screencast on the awesome Cherokee web server with
> > it's great web interface and thinking how cool would it be to have a
> > bundle of cherokee with web2py deployed. Actually, cherokee it's
> > prepared for that. It has a set of wizards so you can easily deploy

> > frameworks like this (http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/cookbook_ror.html

[blackthorne]

A second step would be to bundle PostgresSQL with web2py + cherokee.

I'm a dreamer...

[Albert Abril]

Well.. I think that it's more easy integrate a web2py installer in the cherokee assistant, that at reverse.
Maybe, just programming the assistant in cherokee would be an excellent point.

I'm not using cherokee in daily production, but I'm a admire the work at this webserver since two years ago.
The assistants and the web admin are fantastic.

[Albert Abril]

By the way, here's a brief tutorial to config it manually.
http://www.web2py.com/AlterEgo/default/show/184

I don't know if it's working now since cherokee released 1.0.0 version.

[Timothy Farrell]

Oh, well in that case, we just need someone to do it...go for it!