Depends on how much html there is. Since the extra http request is local, the overhead is pretty small. but since you may need *multiple* SSI includes on many html pages, your performance will probably be worse. And even if apache/Linux scales better than 4D, you still have the same bottleneck for dynamic pages, no matter how much of the page is being served by apache.
As for making things easier for the designer, you can use Active4D includes to keep the code away from them. It's the equivalent of what you are proposing to do with SSI. On May 10, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Peter Gutbrod <[email protected]> wrote: > For my online catalog I currently have a setup, where A4D sits behind an > Apache proxy. A4D serves only the html (which is highly dynamic), everything > else like pictures, movies , PDF, css, javascript etc. is served directly by > the Apache proxy. > > The setup works very well, A4D is not exposed directly to the internet and > A4D has not to spend resources and bandwidth by serving all those static and > occasionally very large files. > > > Now I want to add some content that is mostly static with only occasional > A4D generated dynamic content. > > I'm thinking about serving the html for this site from Apache as well and > include the dynamic A4D contend via SSI or PHP-includes within Apache. > > Reason would be: > > - Offload as much work as possible from 4D/A4D. > > - Make it easier for Webdesigners to create the static content, if they > simply have to place some prebuilt "A4D bricks" via includes somewhere and > don't have to know anything about A4D or Fusebox. > > > > Concerning workload, I'm uncertain, whether this approach will be an overall > improvement: > On the downside I increase the number of HTTP requests artificially and > Apache/PHP has to generate the final page in addition to the work A4D has to > do for generating the A4D generated content. > On the plus side the workload is distributed between two machines and I > think Apache on Linux scales much better than 4D/A4D on Windows (maybe I'm > wrong on this.) > > > The alternative would be to stick with my current approach for low dynamic > pages as well, handing over the complete html creation to A4D and serve > everything else from Apache. > > > What is your opinion? > > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > Active4D-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.aparajitaworld.com/listinfo/active4d-dev > Archives: http://active4d-nabble.aparajitaworld.com/ Regards, Aparajita www.aparajitaworld.com "If you dare to fail, you are bound to succeed." - Sri Chinmoy | www.srichinmoy.org _______________________________________________ Active4D-dev mailing list [email protected] http://list.aparajitaworld.com/listinfo/active4d-dev Archives: http://active4d-nabble.aparajitaworld.com/
