Thank you all for all your responses. Cheers. Alejandro.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Stefan de Konink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
