[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Orr) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 10:49:42AM -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > I think this can be better than simply telling the web server to serve
> > certain kinds of files, because it allows you to do complicated
> > URL->filename mappings, and to implement your own security for file
> > access. These situations have already come up on the list, and I
> > could use this sort of functionality myself.
>
> Much as I like having the web server serve static files, it is
> incompatible with having Webware automatically supply the filename
> extension.
>
> Also, even though alternative webservers are great in theory, in
> practice most professional deployments will probably have to use
> Apache anyway, because they need access to other Apache features
> like allow/deny based on client IP, rewriting, virtual hosts, having some
> virtual hosts on the same IP be Webware and some not, etc. Unless we want to
> port all of these features to another webserver.
I'm confused...? This would be more adapter-level. I.e., you send
something like:
serve-static: /var/www/some-file
And the web server serves that file. I'm not sure, but maybe Apache
already does this with local redirects... but that wouldn't work with
files that weren't URL-accessible.
This would potentially save some memory and socket bandwidth, since
the contents of the file wouldn't have to be temporarily loaded into
memory in the AppServer, tossed over the socket, and then displayed.
Whether this makes any sense to do, I suppose depends on the resource
usage of Apache serving a static file and Webware doing the same.
Maybe Webware is fast enough. Maybe the conversation between the
adapter/web server and the AppServer is really the drain.
But, anyway, it's not a big change and it's fully
backward-compatible.
Ian
_______________________________________________
Webware-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
