At 01:50 PM 5/30/01 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
>Geoff Talvola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, there already is an HTTPServerAdapter -- it's called Apache +
> > mod_webkit :-)
> >
> > I think of HTTPServer as something you would use if you wanted to embed an
> > HTTP server into another application to provide a web-based interface to
> > that application without needing a separate web server. In some
> > circumstances this can be very useful. It's also convenient to use for
> > development since it's so easy to get started with it. For actual
> > deployment, I assume most people would go with Apache or another web
> server
> > to get the benefit of SSL and/or to be able to serve static files directly
> > from the filesystem.
>
>Well, I proposed HTTPServerAdapter more for the simplicity and ease of
>maintenance. If the only real reason for an HTTP server to be
>included with Webware is so that it can be embedded, doesn't
>HTTPServerAdapter fit that bill too? It's another process, but what's
>a few processes among friends?
That's true... but since I'm on Windows, I do find process handling to be
quite a lot more cumbersome than you Unix guys.
The big advantage of using adapters as separate processes is that they can
implement a retry strategy so they are robust to restarts of the app
server. The advantage of handling the protocols directly within the app
server are simpler configuration and deployment, and better speed.
> > >Also, eventually there *is* going to be a FTPServerAdapter... if
> > >someone else doesn't write it, I'm sure I will. With more than one
> > >server involved it's easiest if the AppServer is always expected to be
> > >in place.
> >
> > I didn't quite get this. Are you proposing writing an FTP adapter in
> > Python that would accept FTP requests and forward them to the app
> server as
> > though they were HTTP GET requests?
>
>HTTP is probably too minimal, but the basic socket communication with
>the AppServer could be extended with the FTP commands too. Say, by
>passing a dictionary with 'format': 'FTP', and whatever command set
>makes sense. I've only had a cursory look at what WebDAV does, but
>there seems to be a similar command set. Maybe FTP should be phrased
>in WebDAV terms.
>
> > I think rather than write more and more adapters I prefer to go with Chuck
> > and Tavis's goal of allowing the app server to listen on different ports
> > and different protocols.
>
>Maybe it's not important, but there seems to be a better symmetry to
>adapters. Webware doesn't (very successfully) implement any protocols
>directly right now, relying on adapters to do that. Is HTTP
>definitely unique in needing that abstraction layer?
>
>OTOH, something like FastCGI could perhaps be implemented directly in
>the AppServer, which would probably speed it up considerably.
True. I lost interest in FastCGI when I couldn't find any evidence that
anyone has ever successfully used it on Windows, and I couldn't get even a
"hello, world" to work myself.
--
- Geoff Talvola
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
