On July 17, 2002 11:00 am, Bill Traynor wrote: > >> to update linux.ca is needed more urgently, we should use a solution > >> that's faster to implement.
drop in product or skin takes about 20 minutes to set up see http://zopezen.org for a phpnuke et al equivalent but with more features and scalability. The nicest part is its only a template, which means that if you have the skill you can add and customize at will. Easily integrates xml-rpc, http, xml, rdf/rss, and db based remote data sources and speaks php and perl where needed...:) Finally zope can serve data from it own db, from the local or a remote file system, or from just about any data source you require provided you can set it up securely. There are very few limitations on data sources, which makes it "arguably" a candidate for the best integrator currently available. See http://www.zope.org/ZopeArchitecture for details. > >Personally, I wouldn't bother with Zope, too much overhead. Well devshed.com seems to think its not an issue....:) apache, squid, zope....serves approx 10000 hits per hour in first gear. See http://cbsnewyork.com/ which did not even burp on Sept 11 2002 where every other news service in the city failed. Sorry I dont remember off hand the hit rate but it was extreme as you can imagine. I know that they use ZEO with is the clustering/failover product but not sure of the number of machines actually behind that site. I would estimate its probably five or six. See http://www.zope.org/Products/ZEO/ZEOFactSheet for details More realistically, a standard 400 AMD with 128 megs ram with apache, squid, zope setup properly would probably be overkill for clue.org Running zope out of the box is not recommended as it can be slow depending on this sites design and its degree of complexity. Loading and serving simple html pages and using zope as a repository to serve the same posses absolutely no issues at all as already pointed out by our friends from Montreal's LUG. Reason that zope is not recommended out of the box is that most zope sites are generally well scripted and extremely data/processing intensive as this is where zope is your friend and makes life relatively simple, now add apache and squid and you have an enterprise class solution. An aside. In one contract negotiation with a client we were discussing the advantages and disadvantages of a ColdFusion/Zope as a CMS solution on the existing php based site. I remember how the contractor pushing ColdFusion reacted when I suggested that we do a comparative analysis/assessment with a loading rated of 5000 hits per hour on equivalent hardware they would select. They wanted no part of it but ended up getting the contract anyway. The site is some 6-9,000 pages deep, the project went way over budget and to this day remains incomplete. The kitty was simply exhausted. Why? The cost to migrate the site in terms of applied hours was never estimated properly with a coldfussion solution. Hence they ran out of money in the absence of any client imposed controlls or schedulled deliverables as part of the cost equation. We costed the project on 2 month work, 3 people and live with all verification testing completed on the day required and were willing to live with a delay penalty which "we imposed". Our time/labour estimates gave us a 20 percent buffer on the time allocation alone. But we were more expensive...:) > Can you define what you mean by overhead and provide a quick comparison of > Zope overhead vs. PHP overhead? > > >PHP is much faster and can do everything that we would want. > >Combined with mysql or postgreSQL, php is one of the best web > >development environments out there. For speed, only JSP is it's equal. Granted php is more well known but there are issues beyond speed, such as mutli user controlls/authorization, workflow, permissions, scalability, security (dont run zope as a cgi service rather proxy it with apache via a redirect), code management, content management, stock products etc etc.... On the raw speed issue I have no critical data at hand so can not comment. Can only speek on stability, development time and scalability. With squid in front there are no speed issues that I am aware off but have been known to be wrong. Zope suffers only at this time from a lack of exposure at the more general deployment level as it does not play in this space, rather focusses on the corporate market and competes well with Vinjette and equivalent class products. I dont really want to sound this fanatical about zope, but there is much misunderstanding about what it can do, what space it plays well in and how easy it is to use from what I have been reading on this list and others. This is very common however at this stage of the products exposure and maturity. In general, the only criticism I have of zope (aside from the documentation issues) is a lack of targetted marketing and exposure at the more generic level, but then again its not the target market; an aspect that Zope.com (ala zope corp) has done intentionally too maximize its internal resources to get the greatest bang for the buck invested. And its working. Im just happy that their "investors" insisteted that the product be released under a gpl or equivalent license. I think there is no debate on that issue...:) Best as always /ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
