> >ASP.NET is a better choice for a web application because it's easier to be > >used by a programer.:) > Religious discussions are off-topic on this list...
It wasn't only my opinion it was an aswer to a quotation or an interpretation of it that said ASP.NET is better than HTTP API. It's true for web applications because of the above however this topic is about using HTTP API in Apache HTTPD. And of course ASP.NET and HTTP API are quite different things. > >However ASP.NET uses IIS 6 and IIS 6 uses HTTP API so > >nothing will be faster. But Apache HTTPD is a web server not a web > >application. > > Yes but you can plug ASP.NET into any server, including Apache. Not > trivial, but a project in incubation (waiting for my SVN skill to increase > to the point that it starts out as the sole version control system for > the subproject) will offer this as open-source with Apache. Actually > anyone could create the thunks required to host ASP.NET. Heck, there is a command line host ;) It was a reaction to the same quotation that said it's better to use ASP.NET than HTTP API. I've tried to connect Apache HTTPD and Microsoft ASP.NET on Win32, I've done some work on .NET side however I'm not experienced enough in Apache HTTPD enough to do the other side. But you didn't said which side have you done and on which side do you require thunks. I can help in the .NET side of the implementation but not too much in an Apache HTTPD module. > >Reply to the long quote about cache: > >In fact HTTP has a cache but you have to store buffers in the cache and you > >have to make HTTP API to send the cached buffer. It will not send cached > >response automatically. > > I thought the entire point was that it was smart enough to act like a > squid-like low level in-kernel cache? If not I'm disappointed :) It's a reply to a quotation that said HTTP API is not a good choice for a "high demand place" as it lacks a lot of feauters. But the author of this quotation thought that HTTP API is a web server. A web has to have cache and authentication features however a HTTP listener like HTTP API don't has to and it's better if it don't provides to can be used widely. The kernel mode cache that it provides (I don't know squid deeply, so I can't answer you question) is better for a web server than sending responses automatically from the cache. And of couse it's cache is very fast, but you have to tell it the identifier of the cached data to can be sent. I think in this situation this way is better than automatic responses from the cache. Sincerely, Kornel
