[Seaside] Swazoo web server (was updateRoot: Weirdness)
maarten.mostert at wanadoo.fr
Thu Jul 19 10:30:08 UTC 2007
I happened to load the Seaside Swazoo parcels this moring but hm....not so easy to start off. (some more parcel comment maybe)
If Swazoo Seaside is the preferred configuration would it not be more cool that VW Seaside loads with Swazoo from the start and adds some Tool extension to get configured ? If I can rent like any dedicated server, upload a VW image and start business that would be really Cool . (Oké James I agree I' have to get a Licence in the mean time).
Notice that now having some real Seaside tests in VW is really boosting understanding how things work excellent !
> Message du 19/07/07 11:16
> De : "Janko Mivšek"
> A : "Seaside - general discussion"
> Copie à :
> Objet : [Seaside] Swazoo web server (was updateRoot: Weirdness)
> Dear Seasiders,
> Let me remind you that there is a web server in Smalltalk named Swazoo
> (http://www.swazoo.org) and that it was recently ported to Squeak too.
> All you need is to connect it to a Seaside. This can be done easily
> because it is already done by Michel Bany on VW Seaside.
> That way you get a nicely packed web app server, with easy, out of the
> box installation. And from experience so far I can say that Swazoo is
> capable to serve small to medium sized public web sites and all
> intranets. So, only for really big websites you need to start thinking
> to go Apache or lighthttp way ...
> Best regards
> Maintainer of Swazoo
> sig wrote:
> > On 19/07/07, Philippe Marschall wrote:
> >> 2007/7/19, sig :
> >> > As people says: don't put all of eggs in one basket.
> >> >
> >> > Serving all content from single image is nice, but its not always
> >> achievable.
> >> >
> >> > As web server, Seaside must serve as front-end for delivering content
> >> > on the web, but not dictate, the original source of content.
> >> Seaside is not a webserver and not a database layer. It is a web
> >> application development framework. Webservers live Apache for lighttpd
> >> are preferable for serving static files because this is the job they
> >> are really good at and optimized for. They are written in C they use
> >> epoll/sendfile and multiple processors and caching and what not. It is
> >> a simple one time investment that takes off load of your
> >> Squeak/Seaside image and gives it more time and resources to do what
> >> it is good and optimized for: dynamic content. That doesn't mean there
> >> is no place for a simple solution for simple problems. But at the end
> >> of the day for any serious application you will need a standalone
> >> webserver.
> > Hey, lets look to the roots: Seaside serving http requests. And i can
> > assure you, that for 99% of the users in the world, thing which
> > serving http requests called web-server.
> > You may call it web application development framework or anything you
> > want, but this will not makes any difference unless you stop handling
> > http requests.
> > Its a layer, which delivers content to browsers using standard
> > protocol and from this point of view, it must be flexible enough to be
> > able to deliver any content which developer wants to.
> > And you saying 'standalone web server'.. It looks like you insist that
> > seaside in 90% cases in not complete solution for _BASIC_ web
> > solutions?
> > Why it must force developer to use third party tools to be complete?
> > Its better to be slow, as hog but be COMPLETE rather than flexible,
> > complex, but incomplete...
> >> Philippe
> >> > Is there something wrong with this concept?
> Janko Mivšek
> Smalltalk Web Application Server
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Seaside