Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Most modern webservers (Cherokee included) favor you having an > application server, and providing just a thin layer - a simple > connection (i.e. via FastCGI) from the Webserver to it. > > This has several advantages, besides sheer code footprint and > simplicity - One of them is effective privilege separation. By running > separate application servers, connected to Cherokee by a socket or > similar means, each of them can run as a different user (even on a > different machine), but be managed and accessed from the same single > source. > > Now, I'm _not_ a Cherokee programmer, just a humble packager :-)
I partly agree with you on a point. But from my own experience with Cherokee where I really create applications inside Cherokee instead of 'external' one it is *extremely* simple to create an extension. If you then look at what is possible and the performance gain you can get by using Cherokee as an application server itself it might be feasible for some people to code C for the web again ;) In that perspective you could try to create handler_java, that is able to server request, and use another instance of cherokee to do the actual load balancing on a different system, which make it scalable. Stefan _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
