Hey Marcus, 2009/1/14 Marcus Monaghan <[email protected]>: > For anyone who's interested I've created a blog detailing my limited > experiences with Wt. So far I've got a machine ready, built and installed Wt > and I'm about to tackle the examples. > > Constructive comments and tips (to be posted on the blog :)) are always > welcome.
To test the appeal of the mailinglist versus your blog I am also posting this comment/tip to the blog! :-) You write: "I'm aware that Wt comes with it's own web server but I don't think this is production strength.". Since I hope you will have a good experience with Wt, I would still recommend you to develop your application using the built-in httpd. FastCGI is much harder to configure, more inconvenient to deploy applications, and makes it harder to debug applications, compared to the built-in httpd. You could use the built-in httpd for development and the FastCGI connector for deployment, if you prefer. It does not even require recompilation: simply link against one of the two libraries. With respect to "production use", we have a very good experience with the combination of apache as reverse proxying frontend and wthttpd for Wt applications. Deployment of the homepage and examples uses this method, and they often get a nice beating of the Internet which the setup handles without a glitch. Although FastCGI has the benefit that deployment using multiple processes is easier, this is also possible using the built-in httpd with the --session-id-prefix. I any case, I wish you a lot of adventurous fun! Regards, koen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
