You mentioned having to make a WebKit.exe in order to get IIS working.
Would using PythonLauncher have been easier? The launcher can be named to
foo.exe and it will look for a run foo.py using python.exe.
Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
> You mentioned having to make a WebKit.exe in order to get IIS working.
> Would using PythonLauncher have been easier? The launcher can be named to
> foo.exe and it will look for a run foo.py using python.exe.
Using Standalone (part of Installer) was pretty easy for me, since I've used
it before. But for a new user, PythonLauncher sounds like it would work and
would be even easier to set up -- just rename a file.
Standalone should produce a faster-starting WebKit.exe though, because it
puts everything except the supporting dlls into a single file and puts the
supporting dlls into the same directory, which avoids any searching on your
path and minimizes the number of files to be opened. I've compared various
ways of starting Python programs, and using a Standalone executable always
seems to be faster than running python.exe.
Incidentally, I've also noticed that when starting up python.exe, using the
-S flag cuts down the startup time tremendously. It's not as fast as
compiling to an exe with Installer, but it's still much faster than running
without the -S. I'd be curious to know if your Apache CGI gets any faster by
- Geoff Talvola