Dakota Jack wrote:
Too late when I sent this. Let me make the necessary alterations to the nomenclature. Sorry!
web server = df. (WS) app server = df. (AS) request = df. req response = df. res ----> = df. passing the control
With ResourceAction
1.0 WS req WS res HTML [2] 1.1 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.2 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.3 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.4 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.5 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.6 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.7 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.8 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.9 WS req ----> AS res [3] 1.10 WS req ----> AS res [3]
Total 32
Without ResourceAction
1.0 WS req WS res HTML [2] 1.1 WS req AS res [2] 1.2 WS req AS res [2] 1.3 WS req AS res [2] 1.4 WS req AS res [2] 1.5 WS req AS res [2] 1.6 WS req AS res [2] 1.7 WS req AS res [2] 1.8 WS req AS res [2] 1.9 WS req AS res [2] 1.10 WS req AS res [2]
Total 22
However, let me note, once again, that we can make it 22 to 22 by simply sending the attributes that are relevant back to a different server. For example, we could have
<img src='http://blahblahblah.com/ResourceAction.do?file=whatever.gif'>
Doing this, if we are talking about serving images to a large-scale site, we could get rid of both the WS and the AS and use a SCS (small custom server) optimized for this situation. I do this sort of thing constantly, *sub rosa*, on my sites. This is probably quicker than using WS to serve the images, and certainly so if the images are in any way dynamic in nature and if we make use of the multithreading opportunities that crop up in this situation. But, this is going afield. And, this is only looking at the upside too.
Jack
If we are talking about dynamically-created resources, then I would tend to agree with your view. But we have, at least as far as I was concerned, been talking about strictly static resources.
In that case, your basic premise boils down to, as I see it:
An app server running ResourceAction can serve resources more efficiently than a web server.
Again, strictly talking about static resources, I would be absolutely SCHOCKED to learn this is the case under most circumstances. That would be like saying a Cadillac could beat a NASCAR vehicle in 1 ten-lap race... It might be able to under some circumstances, like the NASCAR driver being drunk!, and certainly there are some very nice trade-offs to driving the Caddy like more room and a better stereo, but in general you wouldn't expect the Caddy to lose.
A bit of hyperbole there, but the underlying point is what's important.
-- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
