[Freeswitch-users] Python vs LUA

[Anton VG]

Thanks Antonio! Got the idea.


2011/4/27 Antonio Teixeira <eagle.antonio at gmail.com>:
> Hello Anton
>
> If you are designing simple stuff  with python , stick with it.
> If you are using tons and tons of IVR's calls , Lua is more lightweight ,
> don't forget that python is a highly heavy duty language.
>
> If you process a large number of ivrs ( millions) ESL will be the best
> solution you can find a server.py in your pythonesl folder , if you can't
> find it drop me an e-mail.
>
> Currently i'm developing a framework that will behind a load Balancer scale
> the "Application" part of the ivr's.
>
> A smal framework for your case could be :
>
> server.py from pythonesl > It's A threaded Server Not MP , means every call
> will be equal to 1 thread ! Be carefull :D
> Sqlalchemy will support connection polling.
>
> If you need further help just ask :)
>
> A/T
>
>
>
> 2011/4/27 Nicolas Brenner <nico at clickfono.com>
>>
>> After having used Javascript and Lua for scripting in FreeSWITCH, I would
>> recommend using ESL for anything serious. There are many advantages to using
>> ESL instead of a script inside FreeSWITCH, but the main one for me was
>> easier call control, especially when doing asynchronous stuff. I believe
>> there's a Python version of the ESL library, so you shouldn't have much
>> trouble getting started.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Anton VG <anton.vazir at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>> Cannot get answer for myself for languages processing
>>> overhead/preference,
>>>
>>> I personally would like to use Python for scripting under Freeswitch,
>>> but considering some recent list activity about low CPS while using
>>> python scripts, etc
>>> querstioning, maybe it's better to use LUA instead? WIKI or list does
>>> not answer this questions in satisfying manner unfortunatelly. For DB
>>> intensive scripts - DB connections pool is a very important stuff,
>>> having direct influence performance and CPS specifically.
>>>
>>> It looks that lua might be lighter and more tightly integrated to FS,
>>> but if processing overhead difference is just a few times python is
>>> still preferred for me (and many others) since much more
>>> powerfull/libraryreach/etc.
>>> I'ts would be just nice to clear this question.
>>>
>>> 1. Is there any comparisions on plain processing overhead?
>>> 2. Any data on memory consumtption per active python process?
>>> 2. Is there a freeswitch DB pool connection interface like for LUA in
>>> mod_python?
>>> 3. If not - what would be the known technique to use external DB
>>> connection pool from inside the FS python script?
>>> 4. Seems logical, but please confirm/reject - once executed (compiled
>>> to the bytecode) - the second time the python script under FS will be
>>> executed as precompiled bytecode?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Anton.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
>>> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
>>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
>>> http://www.freeswitch.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
>> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
>> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
>> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
>> http://www.freeswitch.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org
>
>