[Seaside] Integrating Images on a website. Don't want to use Apache or WAFileLibrary.

[Miguel Cobá]

Yes, maybe in some context the portability of a "server" application have
any advantage.
But, in Seaside you are writing webapps. WEB apps, not desktop apps or usb
transportable apps.
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
a lot of squeak images and caching the static content in the web server.
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
anyone on the internet.


On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM, cdrick <cdrick65 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/4/24, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall at gmail.com>:
> > 2008/4/24 Janko Mivšek <janko.mivsek at eranova.si>:
> >
> > > Philippe Marschall wrote:
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >
> >  > > >  Swazoo is actually able to come very close to Apache, able to
> serving
> >  > > > static content with 300Mbits/s on VW, that is 3 times saturation
> of 100M
> >  > > > Ethernet. This is enough throughput for all except really large
> websites
> >  > out
> >  > > > there. And of course, you can always switch to Apache or
> something
> >  > similar
> >  > > > later!
> >  > > >
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > But even in this case Swazoo will eat CPU cycles from Seaside
> because
> >  > > VW (like Squeak) is single threaded.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >  Yes, but minimally comparing to Seaside and also not on the same
> time.
> >
> > At least on Squeak / Kom large uploads hog the CPU / image. This is
> >  not minimal at all.
> >
>
> So next question, would it be possible to launch two squeak images ?
> One that only serves static files with Swazoo.
> And one for seaiside/aida. If I understand correctly
>
> It will certainly hog a bit the cpu but not the image doing "dynamic
> web". Just I don't know how to deal with both images, maybe a specific
> handler on the web one...
>
> I personnaly have no opposition using Apache or whatever, but this
> will be far easier to setup especially for small experiments,
> developping time etc.... You can carry all on a usb key, just lauch
> the image and here it is (I think this is what people mean by
> portability).
>
> Personnaly, I found easier to evaluate WAKom startOn: 8080 than
> configuring Apache ;) and it would be a nice example on how to
> interact with 2 images. Any ideas ? oppositions ?
>
> Cheers
>
> Cédrick
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/seaside/attachments/20080424/c9178f67/attachment.htm