On 10/3/07, Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So if you're just worried about failing over stateless web servers, > > > > so whats so bad about stateless protocols? i prefer them actually. > > specially over the internet. you can do distributed transactions over > > over them and stay sane. > > Because stateless protocols don't solve the vast majority of the > world's problems! EVERY software application is stateful. > > Even HTTP tries (badly) to maintain session state by using cookies. If > you are failed over to another web server, how does your session state > (cookies and associated data) follow you? >
no i dont use cookies. they suck. state is embedded in resource ids. when state changes a new resource id is returned. i imitate http but i dont use it. i have only four methods. create, read, update, delete. the rest are opaque resource ids and self describing data. > This is a huge problem domain that load-balancing alone doesn't even > begin to touch. > of course if you have your data in humongous tables. I started out solving this problem with no clue at all. And it was supposed to be a hazing ritual. -- Lay low and nourish in obscurity _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
