<!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] Re: Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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...<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@lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org><BR>
Sent: Sat Feb 09 14:28:12 2008<BR>
Subject: [Seaside] Re: Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?<BR>
<BR>
"Boris Popov" <boris@deepcovelabs.com> wrote<BR>
<BR>
> Well, for internal deployments of this small scale that don't need ssl and<BR>
> other advanced features Swazoo, Kom and others are already good enough,<BR>
> isn't it?<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Dunno. e.g. Does Swazoo server static content? I don't think Kom does. Not<BR>
sure what other "features" make or don't make sense, and I do understand the<BR>
points about not re-inventing Apache.<BR>
<BR>
Unsure ... Sophie<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<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>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>