About Seaside 3.0
Locked
 
|
Philippe,
Why? That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it correctly. Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can thanks to the cryptography group's efforts. With some extra effort, it could serve secure pages on its own. Just about any otherwise non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure web server. Bill Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com ================================= SSL belongs into Apache not Comanche. Cheers Philippe Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: [hidden email] Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029 _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
> Philippe,
> > Why? That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it > correctly. Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can > thanks to the cryptography group's efforts. With some extra > effort, it > could serve secure pages on its own. Just about any otherwise > non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure > web server. > > Bill Bill, a simple question, why do so many Smalltalker's insist on reinventing the wheel? Apache isn't just a web server, it's *the* platform of the Internet and it's not some trivial thing to simply reimplement and replace everything it can do for you out of the box. Isn't it about time to learn how to play nice with the outside world and stop insisting that every single piece of the tool chain be implemented in Smalltalk? Despite what you're implying, Apache is not that difficult to setup and there's tons and tons stuff available for making it do anything you want. As for setting it up with Seaside, you could easily find a dozen different working configurations prewritten with a trivial look through the Seaside forums. Yes, that stuff should be easier to find, possibly posted on the seaside.st site in a visible place. With a prewritten config, setting up Apache probably takes less time than installing Seaside. This is all it takes... <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName yoursite.com DocumentRoot /var/www/yoursite.com RewriteEngine On ProxyRequests Off ProxyPreserveHost On UseCanonicalName Off RewriteRule ^/seaside/files(.*)$ http://localhost:3001/seaside/files$1 [P,L] RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/%{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ http://localhost:3001/seaside/yoursite/$1 [P,L] </VirtualHost> Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config file and avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools available to you? Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Hola querida,
Esta todo bien? Te llame hoy durante el dia al cell phone y nunca hubo respuesta. Te llame a la mañana y no estabas en tu casa. Te acabo de llamar y no hay nadie ahí. Por favor decime. Love, V. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> To: "'Seaside - general discussion'" <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:24 PM Subject: RE: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0 >> Philippe, >> >> Why? That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it >> correctly. Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can >> thanks to the cryptography group's efforts. With some extra >> effort, it >> could serve secure pages on its own. Just about any otherwise >> non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure >> web server. >> >> Bill > > Bill, a simple question, why do so many Smalltalker's insist on > reinventing > the wheel? Apache isn't just a web server, it's *the* platform of the > Internet and it's not some trivial thing to simply reimplement and replace > everything it can do for you out of the box. Isn't it about time to learn > how to play nice with the outside world and stop insisting that every > single > piece of the tool chain be implemented in Smalltalk? > > Despite what you're implying, Apache is not that difficult to setup and > there's tons and tons stuff available for making it do anything you want. > As for setting it up with Seaside, you could easily find a dozen different > working configurations prewritten with a trivial look through the Seaside > forums. Yes, that stuff should be easier to find, possibly posted on the > seaside.st site in a visible place. With a prewritten config, setting up > Apache probably takes less time than installing Seaside. This is all it > takes... > > <VirtualHost *:80> > ServerName yoursite.com > DocumentRoot /var/www/yoursite.com > RewriteEngine On > ProxyRequests Off > ProxyPreserveHost On > UseCanonicalName Off > RewriteRule ^/seaside/files(.*)$ http://localhost:3001/seaside/files$1 > [P,L] > RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/%{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f > RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ http://localhost:3001/seaside/yoursite/$1 [P,L] > </VirtualHost> > > Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config file > and > avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools available > to you? > > Ramon Leon > http://onsmalltalk.com > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
Am Sonntag, 13. Juli 2008 04:24:30 schrieb Ramon Leon:
> Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config file > and avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools > available to you? Apache rewriting is no nice solution. For example, you can't get the client certificate in your application. Performance is bad. And I think the client IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...) People had the same problem using Java containers and came up with AJP: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-3.3-doc/AJPv13.html Maybe its possible to implement this in smalltalk? There is good support in apache and lighttpd, including load balancing and things like that. Piero _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
> Apache rewriting is no nice solution.
Many would disagree. > For example, you can't get the client > certificate in your application. That might be a good reason, I'll grant you that one. > Performance is bad. Hardly an argument for a moving to an even slower single threaded non scaleable Smalltalk web server and tying it up doing boring stuff like serving static content while chewing up you're very limited application resources which have to do all their work on the same thread. > And I think the client IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...) Not true at all. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: About Seaside 3.0
|
|
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K
Also, further up the scale you have load balancer farms that offload all that boring stuff and proxy the rest to your application, be it seaside or ruby or whatnot. There's a reason they exist and we shouldn't hesitate to delegate a bit and focus on the stuff that makes a real difference. _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Victor-67
Sorry, this was a totally miss sent message.
Victor ============================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Victor" <[hidden email]> To: "Seaside - general discussion" <[hidden email]> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0 > Hola querida, > > Esta todo bien? > Te llame hoy durante el dia al cell phone y nunca hubo respuesta. > Te llame a la mañana y no estabas en tu casa. Te acabo de llamar y no hay > nadie ahí. > Por favor decime. > > Love, > V. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ramon Leon" <[hidden email]> > To: "'Seaside - general discussion'" <[hidden email]> > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:24 PM > Subject: RE: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0 > > >>> Philippe, >>> >>> Why? That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it >>> correctly. Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can >>> thanks to the cryptography group's efforts. With some extra >>> effort, it >>> could serve secure pages on its own. Just about any otherwise >>> non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure >>> web server. >>> >>> Bill >> >> Bill, a simple question, why do so many Smalltalker's insist on >> reinventing >> the wheel? Apache isn't just a web server, it's *the* platform of the >> Internet and it's not some trivial thing to simply reimplement and >> replace >> everything it can do for you out of the box. Isn't it about time to >> learn >> how to play nice with the outside world and stop insisting that every >> single >> piece of the tool chain be implemented in Smalltalk? >> >> Despite what you're implying, Apache is not that difficult to setup and >> there's tons and tons stuff available for making it do anything you want. >> As for setting it up with Seaside, you could easily find a dozen >> different >> working configurations prewritten with a trivial look through the Seaside >> forums. Yes, that stuff should be easier to find, possibly posted on the >> seaside.st site in a visible place. With a prewritten config, setting up >> Apache probably takes less time than installing Seaside. This is all it >> takes... >> >> <VirtualHost *:80> >> ServerName yoursite.com >> DocumentRoot /var/www/yoursite.com >> RewriteEngine On >> ProxyRequests Off >> ProxyPreserveHost On >> UseCanonicalName Off >> RewriteRule ^/seaside/files(.*)$ http://localhost:3001/seaside/files$1 >> [P,L] >> RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/%{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f >> RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ http://localhost:3001/seaside/yoursite/$1 [P,L] >> </VirtualHost> >> >> Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config file >> and >> avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools >> available >> to you? >> >> Ramon Leon >> http://onsmalltalk.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
Am Sonntag, 13. Juli 2008 05:10:52 schrieb Ramon Leon:
> > Apache rewriting is no nice solution. > Many would disagree. admitted :) > > Performance is bad. > > Hardly an argument for a moving to an even slower single threaded non > scaleable Smalltalk web server and tying it up doing boring stuff like > serving static content while chewing up you're very limited application > resources which have to do all their work on the same thread. True. Just wanted to mention that there exists a protocol designed to optimize the communication between apache and application server. Piero _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
> True. Just wanted to mention that there exists a protocol > designed to optimize > the communication between apache and application server. > > Piero Yup, and if you look you'll see Phillippe already posted a low priority feature about implementing that nearly a week ago. Issue 89: Provide an AJP connector http://code.google.com/p/seaside/issues/detail?id=89 Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Schwab,Wilhelm K
You will have Apache as a frontend anyway because:
- there is to my knowledge no way to run Squeak on a privileged port without giving it root rights - there is to my knowledge no way to generate Apache style access logs with Kom. The ones that can be read by a whole lot of tools like AWStats. - Apache will still be running when your image is long gone and can serve a nice 503 page - less bitching with your admin and security people Second, HTTPS/SSL really eats CPU cycles. Thats why a lot of sites like GMail use it only for login and then switch back to HTTP. Once you have accepted that there will always be an Apache frontend implementing a web server in Smalltalk doesn't make a whole lot of sense anymore. Something like an AJP connector will do fine. Cheers Philippe 2008/7/13 Bill Schwab <[hidden email]>: > Philippe, > > Why? That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it > correctly. Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can > thanks to the cryptography group's efforts. With some extra effort, it > could serve secure pages on its own. Just about any otherwise > non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure > web server. > > Bill > > > > > > Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com > ================================= > > SSL belongs into Apache not Comanche. > > Cheers > Philippe > > Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. > University of Florida > Department of Anesthesiology > PO Box 100254 > Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 > > Email: [hidden email] > Tel: (352) 846-1285 > FAX: (352) 392-7029 > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Piero Sartini-3
On Jul 12, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Piero Sartini wrote: > Am Sonntag, 13. Juli 2008 04:24:30 schrieb Ramon Leon: >> Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config >> file >> and avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools >> available to you? > > IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...) You can easily take care of that. you can use the X-Forwarded-For header. the docs are skimpy but its in place. Its even easier to get working with nginx. _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |