Yes, maybe in some context the portability of a "server" application have any advantage.<br>But, in Seaside you are writing webapps. WEB apps, not desktop apps or usb transportable apps.<br>For a lot of us, having a server, a real server serving our application is worth the hassle of setting up a web server, load balancing<br>
a lot of squeak images and caching the static content in the web server.<br>I see just a few valid scenarios where having your web app in a usb memory stick is better than a real instalation accessed for<br>anyone on the internet.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM, cdrick <<a href="mailto:cdrick65@gmail.com">cdrick65@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2008/4/24, Philippe Marschall <<a href="mailto:philippe.marschall@gmail.com">philippe.marschall@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> 2008/4/24 Janko Mivek <<a href="mailto:janko.mivsek@eranova.si">janko.mivsek@eranova.si</a>>:<br>
><br>
> > Philippe Marschall wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > > Swazoo is actually able to come very close to Apache, able to serving<br>
> > > > static content with 300Mbits/s on VW, that is 3 times saturation of 100M<br>
> > > > Ethernet. This is enough throughput for all except really large websites<br>
> > out<br>
> > > > there. And of course, you can always switch to Apache or something<br>
> > similar<br>
> > > > later!<br>
> > > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > > But even in this case Swazoo will eat CPU cycles from Seaside because<br>
> > > VW (like Squeak) is single threaded.<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > Yes, but minimally comparing to Seaside and also not on the same time.<br>
><br>
> At least on Squeak / Kom large uploads hog the CPU / image. This is<br>
> not minimal at all.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>So next question, would it be possible to launch two squeak images ?<br>
One that only serves static files with Swazoo.<br>
And one for seaiside/aida. If I understand correctly<br>
<br>
It will certainly hog a bit the cpu but not the image doing "dynamic<br>
web". Just I don't know how to deal with both images, maybe a specific<br>
handler on the web one...<br>
<br>
I personnaly have no opposition using Apache or whatever, but this<br>
will be far easier to setup especially for small experiments,<br>
developping time etc.... You can carry all on a usb key, just lauch<br>
the image and here it is (I think this is what people mean by<br>
portability).<br>
<br>
Personnaly, I found easier to evaluate WAKom startOn: 8080 than<br>
configuring Apache ;) and it would be a nice example on how to<br>
interact with 2 images. Any ideas ? oppositions ?<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Cédrick<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
seaside mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org">seaside@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside" target="_blank">http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>