[Seaside] Re: Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?
boris at deepcovelabs.com
Sat Feb 9 22:32:16 UTC 2008
Both serve content from libraries well enough, did you mean some other static content? Dumping those resources to the front end web server is usually done only for larger deployments as an optimization...
-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 14:28:12 2008
Subject: [Seaside] Re: Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?
"Boris Popov" <boris at deepcovelabs.com> wrote
> 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?
Dunno. e.g. Does Swazoo server static content? I don't think Kom does. Not
sure what other "features" make or don't make sense, and I do understand the
points about not re-inventing Apache.
Unsure ... Sophie
seaside mailing list
seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the seaside