Xan wrote:
> "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
Yeah, it is a good idea. :-)
> 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
The thing is that I completely agree with it, but I'm still
wondering if the Cherokee site is the best place for two reasons:
- It will be seen as simple advertisement, even if it's fair.
- I wouldn't like to advertise other web servers inside the
Cherokee web page.
Lets do it, and I'll try to give you a hand, but.. I think that it's
better if we publish it in other place. However, if all of you guys
want to use the Wiki, I won't complain any more ;)
--
Greetings, alo.
http://www.alobbs.com
_______________________________________________
Cherokee mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.alobbs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
