[fermigier]

Same. I really want to like (and use) uWSGI, for many reasons, but I find it's lacking severely in the department of documentation (searching "uwsgi" on Amazon gives zero hits!).

A properly edited book would be awesome. I would pay for it of course.

[kogepathic]

> I really want to like (and use) uWSGI, for many reasons, but I find it's lacking severely in the department of documentation (searching "uwsgi" on Amazon gives zero hits!).

uWSGI definitely needs more concise tutorials on how to accomplish some tasks (e.g. creating Hello World with python and uWSGI, or how the uWSGI emperor works).

However I disagree with "lacking severely in the department of documentation"

Sure, it's not as easy as some other projects to dive into (e.g. Django) but IMHO the documentation is not lacking, it's just not forthcoming.

If you sit down and read through the uWSGI documentation, you'll discover a lot of very useful functionality and a reasonable description of how to utilise it.

What's lacking is the tl;dr way to bash something out quick and dirty.

[pas]

https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/WSGIquickstart.h... it seems very quick and straight to the point (yet complete, it even starts with apt-get)

https://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Emperor.html - has config snippets too

Or maybe you mean detailed step by step instructions, a'la howtoforge?

[kogepathic]

> Or maybe you mean detailed step by step instructions, a'la howtoforge?

Yes, this is what I meant when I said

> IMHO the documentation is not lacking, it's just not forthcoming.

[bpicolo]

Yep. Somewhat tricky when you have 896 runtime options. That said, have been happy running uwsgi in production for a lot of python (and php) services.

Yelp.com runs behind uwsgi, and effectively all of the python services behind it do as well. Some use more uncommon features like gevent support.

[616c]

I think their documentation is quite thorough. It's just as the other commenter indicated an app that extensible doesn't have cookie cutter simplistic configs out of the box.

[rspeer]

It's perhaps thorough, but it's not particularly organized or edited.

[aphextron]

>Same. I really want to like (and use) uWSGI, for many reasons, but I find it's lacking severely in the department of documentation (searching "uwsgi" on Amazon gives zero hits!).

Agreed. After recently testing out Python for a web dev project I was really dismayed at the fragmentation and lack of usability in the landscape of application servers. Here's hoping this might lead to some standardization.