[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 mailing list