PDA

View Full Version : Re: Re: What's next?



Pat Farrell
2004-06-28, 10:29
From: "Jack Coates" <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org>
> > Depends a lot on whether this is about 5.2 or 6.0 or even 7.0.
>The discussion is about the next major version, regardless of number.

Good catch. I meant 5.3, 5.4 or 6.0 or 7.0.

This is a call of Vidur or someone else at Slim, but
I see this as being much too large for a 5.x series change.

If the major refactoring gets on the roadmap, I'd be curious
to hear a discussion as to the attractiveness of using
Perl::HTML rather than just writing this all as a module
to Apache. Now that it isn't a home grown server,
most of the code reuse arguments are moot, but
managing an Apache module is a ton easier than
having a dedicated service (see all the usual permissions
problems over on "discuss").

Pat

Jack Coates
2004-06-28, 10:34
> From: "Jack Coates" <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org>
>> > Depends a lot on whether this is about 5.2 or 6.0 or even 7.0.
>>The discussion is about the next major version, regardless of number.
>
> Good catch. I meant 5.3, 5.4 or 6.0 or 7.0.
>
> This is a call of Vidur or someone else at Slim, but
> I see this as being much too large for a 5.x series change.
>
> If the major refactoring gets on the roadmap, I'd be curious
> to hear a discussion as to the attractiveness of using
> Perl::HTML rather than just writing this all as a module
> to Apache. Now that it isn't a home grown server,
> most of the code reuse arguments are moot, but
> managing an Apache module is a ton easier than
> having a dedicated service (see all the usual permissions
> problems over on "discuss").
>
> Pat

you're forgetting cross-platform support though... while that would be
easier for us Linux geeks, it'd make things a little harder for everyone
else. Unless, are you thinking of shipping a stripped-down Apache binary
with the installer? That's a quick way to refactoring the web-ui,
certainly :) I'd be interested in the performance/installation-size
implications.

--
Jack At Monkeynoodle.Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

Roy M. Silvernail
2004-06-28, 12:57
Jack Coates wrote:

>>From: "Jack Coates" <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org>
>>
>>
>>>>Depends a lot on whether this is about 5.2 or 6.0 or even 7.0.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The discussion is about the next major version, regardless of number.
>>>
>>>
>>Good catch. I meant 5.3, 5.4 or 6.0 or 7.0.
>>
>>This is a call of Vidur or someone else at Slim, but
>>I see this as being much too large for a 5.x series change.
>>
>>If the major refactoring gets on the roadmap, I'd be curious
>>to hear a discussion as to the attractiveness of using
>>Perl::HTML rather than just writing this all as a module
>>to Apache. Now that it isn't a home grown server,
>>most of the code reuse arguments are moot, but
>>managing an Apache module is a ton easier than
>>having a dedicated service (see all the usual permissions
>>problems over on "discuss").
>>
>>Pat
>>
>>
>
>you're forgetting cross-platform support though... while that would be
>easier for us Linux geeks, it'd make things a little harder for everyone
>else. Unless, are you thinking of shipping a stripped-down Apache binary
>with the installer? That's a quick way to refactoring the web-ui,
>certainly :) I'd be interested in the performance/installation-size
>implications.
>
>
Having run an Apache server on Win2K (not for a public website, but for
some research work, so it was a private server), I found that Apache is
fairly resource-hungry even when it's just sitting there. Hunting
mosquitos with a howitzer comes to mind.

Even on a linux box, that would mean either installing Apache from
scratch or tweaking an existing installation. (Apache 1 vs 2?)

Don't get me wrong. It's an elegant idea. I just wonder if it doesn't
raise the complexity of an installation unnecessarily.
--

Roy M. Silvernail is roy (AT) rant-central (DOT) com, and you're not
"It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com

Jack Coates
2004-06-28, 13:06
....
>>>
>>
>>you're forgetting cross-platform support though... while that would be
>>easier for us Linux geeks, it'd make things a little harder for everyone
>>else. Unless, are you thinking of shipping a stripped-down Apache binary
>>with the installer? That's a quick way to refactoring the web-ui,
>>certainly :) I'd be interested in the performance/installation-size
>>implications.
>>
>>
> Having run an Apache server on Win2K (not for a public website, but for
> some research work, so it was a private server), I found that Apache is
> fairly resource-hungry even when it's just sitting there. Hunting
> mosquitos with a howitzer comes to mind.
>

for this reason, I use thttpd quite a bit (see
http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/). There's a Windows port in beta....
Still, the important thing to keep in mind is the cost/benefit tradeoff of
factoring out the web UI at all.

> Even on a linux box, that would mean either installing Apache from
> scratch or tweaking an existing installation. (Apache 1 vs 2?)
>

I'd be a lot more reticent to install if it had potential to screw up my
somewhat tetchy Apache/Zope setup.

--
Jack At Monkeynoodle.Org: It's A Scientific Venture...
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." -- President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

ron thigpen
2004-06-28, 13:20
Roy M. Silvernail wrote:

> Having run an Apache server on Win2K (not for a public website, but for
> some research work, so it was a private server), I found that Apache is
> fairly resource-hungry even when it's just sitting there. Hunting
> mosquitos with a howitzer comes to mind.

I'm not sure I'd agree 100% with this characterization. I keep an
instance up on my Win2K workstation for a development sandbox, and it
pretty much just sits there, stable as bedrock, without ever causing
problems. Two processes, about 3M total memory consumption. Lighter is
better, but so is "known" and "stable". It certainly would complicate
the job of the installer script writer, but that might just be balanced
by the benefits. As a for instance, we might have saved all that HTTP
keep-alive and caching work that was just done.

A stripped down binary is exactly how I'd do it, with an installer
detection that would respect existing installs and give a little
cookbook documentation on how to tweak what you've got if one is found.

--rt