Has anyone analyzed Naviserver performance and features vs. AOLserver lately?
It appears to remain compatible with Windows. The following forum post suggests Naviserver may be a contributing factor to a significant overall performance increase: http://openacs.org/forums/message-view?message_id=3957131 Maybe AOLserver 5 should start as a fork of Naviserver? ;-) On 09/27/2012 06:25 AM, Andrew Piskorski wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:07:07AM -0600, jgdavid...@mac.com wrote: > >> Should we dump the Windows port in favor of a clean Unix code base, >> configure, build, and install? > > Cross-platform portability is very Nice to Have, and I've actually > used it. Fortunately I've never had to deal with or even look at the > Unix vs. Windows compatibility layer, so I can't speak on its > maintenance burden. It just worked. That was really nice when > (unexpectedly) porting my code from Solaris to Windows. > > The AOLserver Windows build process back then indeed seemed pretty > bad; far too much unscriptable Microsoft project file crap. But I > thought someone cleaned that up later. > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:24:41AM -0600, jgdavid...@mac.com wrote: > >> For folks using Windows, I always follow up with the question: With >> VMware, Parallels, etc. today, even if you're bound to Windows >> hardware, can you just virtualize away the difference? > > Absolutely not. In my case, it's because I use AOLserver as a custom > app server, which needs to build against proprietary libraries that > are ONLY available on Windows. If what you need is a native Windows > library, running Linux in a virtualized container is of no help > whatsoever, you might as well be running on a remote Linux box. > (Cygwin I'm not sure about. Can Cygwin applications build with native > Windows libraries?) > > In my case, actually what happened is the proprietary vendor library > discontinued Solaris support, leaving only Windows, so I ported to > Windows. I'm still running it on Windows today. Now, if I was > writing that same app today I might do things somewhat differently. > But it was Really Nice that the custom AOLserver app I'd originally > written on Solaris mostly Just Worked when I ported it to Windows. > > My own AOLserver on Windows use case is likely very atypical, but I > think it's still a useful minor example of how cross-platform > portability can be unexpectedly helpful, even when you originally > didn't think you'd need or want it. > > Is cross-platform support in AOLserver worth the maintenance burden? > Not having worked on that code, I can't say. But I can say that the > cross-platform code does have real value, and was probably a lot of > work to get right way back when, so I'd caution against throwing it > out without a very clear case that doing so is worth more than the > loss, and that there isn't some better way to achieve the same gains. > > My (completely unfounded in any hard evidence) gut-level suspicion is > that 80% of the simplicity gains to be had from completely discarding > Windows support are likely achievable by instead re-factoring (somehow > or other) whatever parts are actually giving maintainers the most > trouble. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;258768047;13503038;j? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html _______________________________________________ aolserver-talk mailing list aolserver-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aolserver-talk
