[Seaside] HTTP Server Structure
Sven Van Caekenberghe
sven at beta9.be
Mon Nov 17 23:20:49 CET 2003
On 17 Nov 2003, at 19:53, Nevin Pratt wrote:
> Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>>> In fact, in hindsight, I doubt I would have bothered with all of the
>>> above. I'd have probably just let my site serve Seaside, and let my
>>> Earthlink site serve all of the static stuff. The static stuff
>>> (i.e., pictures) are the most bandwidth intensive-- let it chew up
>>> Earthlink's bandwidth rather than mine. :-) Of course, I pay an
>>> extra $19.95 a month for that privilege, but it's worth it.
>> Google found a previous posting of you where you explained your
>> approach - minus the last paragraph. Why did you do it that way ? To
>> get both seaside and static http on the same port ? For speed reasons
> You mean, why do I let Earthlink host my pictures?
> Bandwidth. Pure and simple. I only have a 300k uplink speed coming
> from my site. But, minus the pictures, 300k is quite good.
> Or, did you mean, why did I ever set Comanche up to integrate static
> content with Seaside?
> Well, because I didn't always have Earthlink hosting my pictures.
No, my question was, why make a subclass of WAKom instead of a
module/plug/whatever directly in Comanche ?
More information about the Seaside