On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Matt & List,
> > Is there any benefit of mod_proxy over a real proxy front end like "Oops"?
> >
>
> This is a good question..., the only answer I've come up with thus far
> from reading the new-httpd devel list is compelling though. Here's
> what people there said in response to folks trying to kill mod_proxy
> as a canoniacle apache module: (Using the argument your sort of
> alluding to)
> 1) Using mod_proxy as opposed to a seperate package allows you to
> leverage other apache modules..., mod_ssl, and mod_raven for
> commercial folks comes to mind.
> 2) Apache logging. It's the real deal.
>
> Those are the only two that I saw on the list that held any water with
> me. However, if there is an async i/o frontend out there, it would
> have distinct advantages over apache. Namely speed. But for me the
> most compelling is reason #1. If I finish my async i/o patch to
> mod_proxy..., to me, there would be no reason to contemplate another
> package. (Clearly HUGE personal bias here)
Right, but the difference with Oops is it's a threaded server, and while I
couldn't get it to work (the author appears to be Russian, and his idea of
documentation is "oops.cfg is easy to understand. Just edit it"), it looks
like it should be extremely quick, even if serving static images from the
mod_perl httpd, and letting Oops cache them.
--
<Matt/>
Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists
Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions
Email for training and consultancy availability.
http://sergeant.org http://xml.sergeant.org
