On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:07, Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > John Hampton wrote: > > [1] I personally think that both apache and lighttpd's > > configurations suck and that is a big reason why I like Cherokee. > > See? Do you see want I mean? It's really tough to be impartial! > LOL! ;-) > > Seriously, there are point in which Cherokee is better, like the > configuration or the source code, which are very difficult to > measure.
"Showing" that configuration is better perhaps were get with examples. For instance, we could put the code of the configuration files that user should have for achieve: - a simple static web server (without php, ....) in port 80 in localhost. - a web server with php and fastcgi in localhost - redirection of www.hello.com to hello.com/www - etc in each category, we listed the aspect of the configuration files and the process that a user should do for it works for every webserver. It looks like: Apache | Lightttpd | Cherokee Configuration: - a simple.... [Code&steps] | [code&steps] | [code&steps] Showing that source code is better I think it's more difficult (it's more subjective), but not impossible. What are the aspects of Cherokee source code that are the best comparing to other webserver you think?. List these and reasoning why. Regards, Xan. PS: I think that the items of John are the main for including in the page of comparison: * Official site * License * Platforms (windows, linux, bsd, etc) * Language (C, Ada, Fortran, etc) ? Dependencies * Protocols (HTTP/1.1, HTTP/1.0, SSL, etc) * Features (rewrite, proxy, CGI, FastCGI, PHP, etc) * Benchmarks (with instructions on how to replicate) * Links to documentation ? Sample configuration files _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://www.alobbs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
