mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but would be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory management!
-Brian 1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd languages, not forget altogether. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > It's very interesting. > Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module > mod_opensocial.so. > Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :) > > 2008/6/20 Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > sooo great! > > but I have to insist... > > > > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so > > > > try to be faster ;) > > > > > > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....) > > > > > > good night to all! > > (at least, here is time to sleep!) > > > > leo > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale* > sites > >> ;) ;) > >> > >> ropu > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >>> thanks for the replies. > >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big > >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :) > >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some > >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be > >>> fun to code..) > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> leo > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Hi all, > >>> >> as far as I'm reading, > >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready > >>> perspective. > >>> >> am I wrong? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your > >>> current > >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything > CGI-like) > >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using > Java, > >>> go > >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance > >>> characteristics > >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because > it > >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage > of a > >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage > caja > >>> by > >>> > using a web service of some sort. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?) > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs. > >>> "cgi" > >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests > than > >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it > also > >>> has a > >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the > PHP > >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you > >>> have > >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide > variety > >>> of > >>> > servlet containers out there. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> > >>> >> what about other implementations? > >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks to all > >>> >> leonardo > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> .-. --- .--. ..- > >> R o p u > >> > > >
