[Seaside] Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?
boris at deepcovelabs.com
Sat Feb 9 22:22:05 UTC 2008
Well, for internal deployments of this small scale that don't need ssl and other advanced features Swazoo, Kom and others are already good enough, isn't it?
-Boris (via BlackBerry)
----- Original Message -----
From: seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
To: seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sat Feb 09 14:18:28 2008
Subject: [Seaside] Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?
"Ramon Leon" <ramon.leon at allresnet.com> wrote
> +1, it's just too easy to install Apache to serve all the static content
> non Smalltalk stuff.
You are certainly right for someone who has done this before, but to us
newbies it seems scary to think of installing, configuring, and managing
And if the Seaside app we build is, in turn, not delivered as an
extranet-based web service but instead installed separately by individual
end-users or small groups, it is even more of an issue there.
So while I understand the cons, I definitely see some pros as well.
seaside mailing list
seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the seaside