On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 10:13:03 PM UTC+2, Steven Berry wrote: > > With all that said I'm in favor of what you suggest -- rely on gunicorn > where possible. However I don't think what I'm suggesting (and have already > implemented) fundamentally interferes with #21978. As far as I can tell the > django.core.servers.basehttp module exists solely for the runserver > command. And the contents therein aren't so much of a homegrown webserver > as they are convenient subclasses to Python's inherent > wsgiref.simple_server. The onus of maintenance lies largely in the Python > codebase. >
It might not interfere, but there are already perfectly fine alternatives like stunnel which provide you with TLS support. So unless there is a really compelling argument to TLS support to runserver itself (which I yet fail to see in this thread), I am -0 to -1. Keeping the code as simple as possible also makes migrations to a 3rd party server easier later on. Cheers, Florian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/d4e1a606-3af4-43d2-90e4-bed9bcf28ebb%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
