Andrew Sawyers wrote:
If you have needs for Apache, use Apache - but there is no need for it
just for rewriting urls.
Agreed, Jens can fill you in on the rest of the details as to why we use
Apache ;-)
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting
If you have needs for Apache, use Apache - but there is no need for it
just for rewriting urls. There are plenty of ways to rewrite in Squid -
and you can always write your own. See
http://www.squid-cache.org/related-software.html for a list of
redirectors that are available out there.
Having
Peter Bengtsson wrote:
That's very interesting. If you understood Squid better do you think
you'd leave out apache?
Maybe, I guess I just have a soft spot for Apache though ;-)
And what about the performance overhead? Any experience you can share?
Nope, Plone gives me all the performance
Steve Wedig wrote:
I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It
would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems
that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if the
most flexible setup might be to have apache running behind squid, and
On 2/14/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Wedig wrote:
I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It
would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems
that the two main options are squid and apache. I was wondering if the
most flexible
On Feb 14, 2006, at 15:44, Peter Bengtsson wrote:
On 2/14/06, Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Wedig wrote:
I'm in the planning stages for developing a Zope 3 application. It
would be nice to know my http caching plan ahead of time. It seems
that the two main options are squid
On Saturday 11 February 2006 18:17, Steve Wedig wrote:
Or should I just pick one option, either Apache or Squid?
I think people use both. But since this is not necessarily a pure Zope 3
question, you might ask this question at zope@zope.org as well. I know there
is a *lot* of experience with
