<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7651.59">
<TITLE>Re: [Seaside] Swazoo as reverse proxy?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>As a data point, we are currently moving from proxying apps with apache to F5 balancers, I would never want to have a net facing server actually be in the image that runs my app, I just don't want to reinvent the wheel in terms of load handling, balancing and security.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers!<BR>
<BR>
-Boris (via BlackBerry)<BR>
<BR>
----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: seaside-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org><BR>
To: Seaside - general discussion <seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org><BR>
Sent: Fri Feb 08 06:23:52 2008<BR>
Subject: Re: [Seaside] Swazoo as reverse proxy?<BR>
<BR>
> So, what do you think? Is it a good idea, do you see any obstacles?<BR>
<BR>
In my opinion Smalltalk is not competitive when it comes to<BR>
reading/writing bytes from/to pipes, sockets and files. There are<BR>
other systems that can handle that much more efficiently.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
Lukas<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Lukas Renggli<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.lukas-renggli.ch">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch</A><BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
seaside mailing list<BR>
seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside</A><BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>