On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 08:05:17PM +0200, Frederic Faure wrote:
> 1. I understand CGI is slow, and FastCGI is not solid.

I wouldn't completely write off FastCGI.  We had trouble with it but
that could have been due to something specific to our setup.  Also,
Windows is quite a different beast.  The specific problem we ran into
probably doesn't occur on Windows (I suspect it was something to do with
signal handling).

> 2. Dulcinea lets us access a ZODB easily. Since code lives in Python
> scripts and data in a SQL servers, could you give me some reasons to use
> ZODB instead?

We moved from an SQL DB to ZODB and we much prefer ZODB.  It's depends
on the application but our domain was much easier to model using objects
rather than relations.  Also, we have made many changes to the data
model over time.  ZODB makes that easy.

We get good performance from ZODB.  Once the application is running for
a while, most data is in the cache (i.e. in the application memory
space).

OTOH, ZODB is probably not the best DB if you need to store lots of data
(say over 1 GB).

> 4. As of Aug 2003, is Quixote validated for use under a Windows-based web
> server? I ask because I read the following in the mailing list:  "We are
> mainly familiar with Unix, and develop and deploy Quixote under Linux.
> However, we've had several reports of people using
> Quixote under Windows, more-or-less successfully. There are still a few
> Unix-isms in the code, but they are being rooted out in favour of
> portability."

I believe there are people who use Quixote on Windows.

  Neil