KomHttp v. Swazoo server
goran at krampe.se
goran at krampe.se
Thu Oct 20 08:30:01 UTC 2005
Hi!
Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at cableone.net> wrote:
> KomHttp seems to be the default http server for Squeak.
>
> It seems that is fairly due to historical reasons.
>
> Are there technical reasons for choosing KomHttp over Swazoo?
> If I remember correctly Kom is http 1.0 and Swazoo is http 1.1, yes?
Not sure, but we could take a look at that and try to get KomHttpServer
up to 1.1, whatever that entails.
> Is it likely that KomHttp will remain the default?
I can only promise that I maintain it. I haven't done much with it for
some time, so it is definitely overdue for an overhaul, especially given
3.8. I also have performance enhancements lined up that I have found
through profiling.
> Are they both pretty stable?
KomHttpServer is quite stable.
> The SM page at
> http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/0fdb5ffc-cfa1-4d40-96c2-fe325bc8ba5f
> for KomHttp says alpha.
Now it says stable. :) Not sure why it had alpha.
> http://map1.squeakfoundation.org/sm/package/0a5ade31-262b-4d8e-986c-53d1aa254e19
> for Swazoo says beta.
>
> Just looking for opinions (gentle please :) and education.
I haven't looked into Swazoo so can't comment on it. But perhaps I
should take a look.
Generally I think the KomHttpServer code is quite nice - even though
slightly over engineered in places. ;)
> Jimmie
regards, Göran
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|