> Just my personal opinion, but I would not do this. > > Although it sounds a nice idea at face value, you would be creating a nasty > coupling between Apache and 4D that you might come to regret. * (See below)
Thank you very much Peter for taking the time to formulate your detailed answer. It is really appreciated. After reevaluating the potential benefits and drawbacks, I'm sticking with my current workflow: Let Active4D handle the .a4d files (using the Fusebox model) and let Apache handle the rest. The only thing I would offload from A4D with the distributed workflow, would be serving the static part of dynamic pages and that is usually small data in compare to other static data like pictures, movies, PDFs etc., which is already offloaded to Apache with my current Apache proxy workflow. IMO running Active4D behind Apache and let Apache handle any request except requests for .a4d files, is key for keeping things fast. If I'll hit any bottlenecks in the future, I'd better spend time in optimizing caching strategy for dynamic content as you've mentioned. Again, thank you Peter _______________________________________________ Active4D-dev mailing list [email protected] http://list.aparajitaworld.com/listinfo/active4d-dev Archives: http://active4d-nabble.aparajitaworld.com/
