Thanks Roberto for your feedback.
The text seems ready so i created a ticket:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16057
Again, any positive feedback and/or violent flames are welcome.
James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" grou
> Thanks a lot Roberto and Mikhail for your feedback.
>
> This update includes the changes you requested, as well as more links
> to uWSGI wiki: http://piratepad.net/DISxvZLCdG
>
> Is there any other action to take ?
>
>
Seems very good to me, the only thing that i would really change is --home
t
Thanks a lot Roberto and Mikhail for your feedback.
This update includes the changes you requested, as well as more links
to uWSGI wiki: http://piratepad.net/DISxvZLCdG
Is there any other action to take ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django deve
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 9, 2011 5:35:14 PM UTC+10, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Graham Dumpleton
>> wrote:
> Anyway, as you can see the above is a pain point for me as it has been for
> some time. Probably
On Saturday, April 9, 2011 5:35:14 PM UTC+10, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Graham Dumpleton
> wrote:
> > To be blunt, you are actually asking a lot for them to host detailed
> > documentation on uWSGI integration on the Django site for every possible
> way
> >
> To be blunt, you are actually asking a lot for them to host detailed
> documentation on uWSGI integration on the Django site for every possible
> way
> it can be setup. I haven't even managed to get much more than minimal
> setup
> instructions for mod_wsgi into the official Django documentation
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Graham Dumpleton
wrote:
> To be blunt, you are actually asking a lot for them to host detailed
> documentation on uWSGI integration on the Django site for every possible way
> it can be setup. I haven't even managed to get much more than minimal setup
> instructions
To be blunt, you are actually asking a lot for them to host detailed
documentation on uWSGI integration on the Django site for every possible way
it can be setup. I haven't even managed to get much more than minimal setup
instructions for mod_wsgi into the official Django documentation.
I belie
> That said i'd love to *not* have to put a 3 liners module in my
> project directory anymore. A runuwsgi command might not be the only
> way to solve this need.
>
Remember that you do not need those file anymore:
[uwsgi]
env = DJANGO_SETTING_MODULE=mysite.settings
chdir =
module = django.core
Hi James,
Some notes:
> One of the great advantages of uWSGI_ is its ability to gradually
> restart each worker without loosing any request.
I think mod_wsgi in daemon mode is doing the same.
> Nginx provides the uwsgi module by default these days.
Stock nginx does not provide uwsgi module on
On Apr 4, 3:59 pm, Kristaps Kūlis wrote:
> I believe that running manage.py for production deployments is "not
> way to go", as it has been noted by django devs previously.
> What purpose would runuwsgi command serve ?
I'm unsure. Roberto's proposal is interresting: i could configure
uwsgi in
> Hi,
> How uwsgi is more secure than FastCGI ?
I think he is referring to the various included jailing systems (chroot,
linux namespaces, posix capabilities...) because if we are talking about
protocols there are no really differences between uwsgi and FastCGI, both
are unsecure by-design :)
Hi,
How uwsgi is more secure than FastCGI ?
I believe that running manage.py for production deployments is "not
way to go", as it has been noted by django devs previously.
What purpose would runuwsgi command serve ?
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 2:23 PM, James Pic wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Do
On Apr 2, 1:23 pm, James Pic wrote:
> I think it should because it's easier, safer, faster and more secure
> than flup or mod_wsgi. Also, it made my sysadmin life really easy and
> that's something cool to share with the community.
+1 on more docs, since uwsgi is quite useable by now. But pleas
Il giorno 02/apr/2011, alle ore 16.44, Łukasz Rekucki ha scritto:
> On 2 April 2011 13:23, James Pic wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> Do you think uWSGI deserves a place in the official django documentation ?
>>
>> I think it should because it's easier, safer, faster and more secure
>> than fl
On 2 April 2011 13:23, James Pic wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Do you think uWSGI deserves a place in the official django documentation ?
>
> I think it should because it's easier, safer, faster and more secure
> than flup or mod_wsgi. Also, it made my sysadmin life really easy and
> that's someth
Hello everybody,
Do you think uWSGI deserves a place in the official django documentation ?
I think it should because it's easier, safer, faster and more secure
than flup or mod_wsgi. Also, it made my sysadmin life really easy and
that's something cool to share with the community.
In this case,
17 matches
Mail list logo
