Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote: > I am going to try to explain why I made the decision for dropping the > u-Cherokee support. There are a couple of reason that I would like to > share with you: > > - First of all, it did not seem to be one of the most successful > efforts of the project. Most of the people have been focused on > the performance and the fastcgi/scgi support rather than on the > embedded version. > > Basically, I dropped u-Cherokee from trunk because I was trying to > focus the efforts on the most popular pieces of Cherokee and get rid > of the parts that were not attacking users and developers to the > project. I understand and accept your reasons perfectly.
> - From the technical point of view, Cherokee is quite lightweight. Did > you guys remember that Nokia phone (not the 770) that runs Apache? > Let's face it, if a cell phone is able to run such a huge monster, > almost any embedded device ought to be able to run Cherokee, don't > you think? :-) Surely it will be able, but we need to squeeze so much into this device, it's multi-purpose CPE after all, it should do all sorts of things. We try to save as much space/CPU time as we can. > For instance, if you only use CGIs and static files without loggers, > validators, balancers or encoders in your embedded device, it would > be something like this: > > ./configure --enable-static-module=file,cgi > > And after compiling the server you could just remove libplugin*, and > you should be fine, actually. Thank you for the hint :)! > Anyway, I am open the discuss all this stuff and check how we could > work with OktetLABS to make Cherokee a better embedded server. I'm going to review the latest code in the near future and try to make Cherokee do only what we need and then report to the maillist on the results, including saved binary size. Thank you for the reply :)! Sincerely, Nick _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://cherokee-project.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cherokee
