NNnndy·Apr 11, 2022Submission
UWSGI project retired to maintenance mode
1 points · Open discussionunbit
uwsgi
C2013–2022
unbit / uwsgi
uwsgi
uWSGI application server container
6Distinct people
6Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3.6KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
uWSGI application server container
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year6 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2013-01-01 02:07:07 UTC to 2022-04-11 10:30:11 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2015 | 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2016 | 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2017 | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2018 | 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 1 | 0 |
What Hacker News says
6 sourcessee also https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi
In What is the point of using NGINX in front of a Django application> For example, if a contributor force pushes a new commit to a PR
> branch, as a reviewer, I can't see the old version and compare
> against it.
This is not fully true. While you can't "git fetch" that branch
anymore, you can see comments against those old diffs in the pull
request UI, which are the things likely to have changed.
For example, I submitted this PR against uWSGI a few months ago:
https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi/pull/1392
Initially I screwed it up and inserted a field in the middle of a
struct, whereas within a stable release it should of course be added
to the end. If you click on "show outdated" you can see that old diff
where I'm adding the field to the middle of the struct, but click on
"files changed" and it's the current change where I fixed the issue.
I do think GitHub could improve here, they could expose forc
Read the rest
ed pushes
via refs/pull/NUM-COUNTER instead of just refs/pull/NUM as they do
now, but it's important to point out that they're handling the common
case. When someone force-pushes a pull request they're usually doing
so in response to comments on the request, and those comments will
still make sense because GitHub saves away the old diff, which you can
compare with the current state.
Yeah, I created an issue on github about the lack of support for pex on uwsgi. Proposed solution (https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi/pull/1297#issuecomment-240200...) will work, but again, this is not standardised at all. This is one big hack comparing to the way how Erlang boots up their apps. Erlang here is a good comparison, because it is much more complex and harder to learn, but it is complete in terms of release process. You don't have to hack your way out to production, just read the docs and you know what to do.
Python wasn't designed to run this way, so everyone tries to create their on standard.
In Why People Should Learn PythonIt's theoretically rock solid. In practice there are many common scenarios where uwsgi goes wrong. Here's one where a seemingly normal configuration of supervisor and uwsgi doesn't work because uwsgi attached a special meaning to SIGTERM
https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi/issues/296
Note that the bug is closed because it will be fixed in an as-yet unreleased version!
In Graceful reloading with zero downtime for web apps(I wrote the article and 3 web apps on Go).
I would be much more uncomfortable running on uWSGI than on net/http. As far as I can tell (https://github.com/unbit/uwsgi/blob/master/plugins/go/src/uw...) Go's uWSGI implementation is just a small wrapper over C code inside a dll.
It's not portable (support for cgo on Windows is extremely sketchy).
It also goes against common sense. Any code you can write in C, you can write in Go, except it'll be easier (Go is garbage collected, has built-in arrays, strings, hash tables etc.) and there's drastically smaller chance Go will have a security issues due to memory over-write.
It duplicates lots of net/http functionality.
net/http is well documented, well tested, reviewed by extremely knowledgeable people.
Most importantly, it is being used in production by me and many other people.
Finally, net/htt
Read the rest
p gave me everything I needed to write my web applications. Before I would even considering using uWSGI (or anything else) someone would have to explain what exactly does it provide that is so indispensable for writing web apps.