If you have needs for Apache, use Apache - but there is no need for it
just for rewriting urls. There are plenty of ways to rewrite in Squid -
and you can always write your own. See
http://www.squid-cache.org/related-software.html for a list of
redirectors that are available out there.
Having used Squid heavily over the years, there is no need for added
complexity of adding Apache in the mix unless there is something
specifically you need from it.
>From your description, Apache is YAGNI.
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:44 +0000, Peter Bengtsson wrote:
> On 2/14/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Steve Wedig wrote:
> > > I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It
> > > would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems
> > > that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if the
> > > most flexible setup might be to have apache running behind squid, and
> > > zope behind apache.
> > My personal preference is apache -> squid -> zope
> > But that's 'cos I like Apache's rewriting and have more faith in it as a
> > front-end proxy for sanitizing requests and the like...
> That's very interesting. If you understood Squid better do you think
> you'd leave out apache? Or perhaps that not the issue at all for you.
> I'm asking because in my company we've lots of apache experience but
> less so in squid. It's therefore a potential security risk to leave
> out apache.
> And what about the performance overhead? Any experience you can share?
> > cheers,
> > Chris
> > --
> > Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
> > - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
> > _______________________________________________
> > Zope3-users mailing list
> > Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users
> Peter Bengtsson,
> work www.fry-it.com
> home www.peterbe.com
> hobby www.issuetrackerproduct.com
> Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3-users mailing list