<!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: Swazoo as reverse proxy?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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?<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 14:18:28 2008<BR>
Subject: [Seaside] Re: Swazoo as reverse proxy?<BR>
<BR>
"Ramon Leon" <ramon.leon@allresnet.com> wrote<BR>
<BR>
> +1, it's just too easy to install Apache to serve all the static content<BR>
> and<BR>
> non Smalltalk stuff.<BR>
<BR>
You are certainly right for someone who has done this before, but to us<BR>
newbies it seems scary to think of installing, configuring, and managing<BR>
Apache.<BR>
<BR>
And if the Seaside app we build is, in turn, not delivered as an<BR>
extranet-based web service but instead installed separately by individual<BR>
end-users or small groups, it is even more of an issue there.<BR>
<BR>
So while I understand the cons, I definitely see some pros as well.<BR>
<BR>
... 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>