Miguel Cobá wrote:
> I don't understand the issue with portability in having the static
> content served by a web server (apache, lighttpd, nginx).
> In fact, it is not even practical to deploy an app (used for more than a
> couple users) without a kind of proxy/load balancer in front.
> You can let the web server do what does the best, serving static content
> and the seaside to to what it does best, to run your app.
>
> Never will Seaside, or comanche or (mongrel in ruby on rails case for
> the matter) be on par with a web server in serving static data.
> And you don't have to have a lot of user to decide to upgrade from "all
> in the image" to using a "just the app in the image/else on webserver"
> setup.
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!
Start therefore with Swazoo as pure Smalltalk web server with all pros
of being in Smalltalk only, and when needed, switch to Apache. Any
you'll see, you won't need that switch soon!
Swazoo vs. Apache benchmark:
http://www.swazoo.org/benchmarks/swazoo-vs-apache.htmlJAnko
--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si_______________________________________________
seaside mailing list
seaside@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside