World: r3wp

Hope it gets faster to 1.0.x then the mysql driver ;-)

I've been using Cheyenne for the last couple of years.

I've not had any stability problems.

Doc: why not bundle mysql:// with it as well, and add a couple of 
CGI/session/cookie libs?

but nor have I subjected it to any heavy loading.

Have you tried any benchmarking Graham?

Nope.

I just use it for webmail.

hmm, my Rebol is getting rusty.

http://www.compkarori.co.nz:8001/index.rsp

source for each of the rsp pages is at the bottom of the screen

userid: test password: account

Open source: I see no points in getting it closed source. It will 
remain open source (BSD). And I hope that once 1.0 is out, that developer 
will contribute to bring new modules and extend it capabilities.

never got round to writing the code to send mail .. so it just receives 
mail.

thanks doc... just wanted confirmation of what I expected.

And thank goodness it's not LGPL or variant

and capacity?  benchmarks?  any measurable (known/REBOL) limits?

Will did some benchmarks once ...

Maxim: Cheyenne is scalable. I've tested it with 500 simultaneous 
connections without noticing problems. It needs to be tested deeper, 
I dont know the current real limits (It should be limited only by 
available memory and cpu power).

Will "Mike, I started using Apache and rebol as cgi, this is not 
suited for performances as on every call to the cgi, a new instance 
of rebol is  initialized, run and closed.

I thought about using fastcgi, but never came to a working solution.
Now I use uniserve as main webserver, here some advantages:

-it is fast! On my local machine I get +- 600 req/sec for static 
pages and a max of 160req/sec for dynamic rsp pages

-it is written in rebol, I could easly(less than 10 lines code) add 
a rewrite engine

-child process are persistent, this mean you can keep state of your 
web applications, implement caching, keep a pool of connection to 
databases open (in apache + rebol/cgi you'd have to open and close 
the connection for every request)
-it is written by Dock whom I may be the biggest fan ;-)

btw I'm running an unreleased version (have bought commercial support) 
 that support http 1.1, stuff like If-Modified etc..

If you have more specific questions, I'll be glad to try and answer."

thanks.  at least I know it does not suffer from the 50 tcp connection 
limit of REBOL which some people have report IIRC.

I did some bench with Apache 2.0 a few month ago: results were showing 
10% slower than Apache for small files, and 20-30% faster for > 64kb 
files. Theses results are very encouraging given the fact that Apache 
is compiled C while Cheyenne is interpreted REBOL.

If someone is willing to make new benchs, I'll be very glad to see 
the results.

Btw, there's still some space for speed improvements.

Marteen: Thansk for using your "red phone" ;-)

Doing a quick ('n dirty) benchmark..

dock, is the rebcode test version of rebol compatible with cheyenne?

(sorry, I meant 'doc )

Marteen: I'll add a small Database abstraction layer for RSP: so 
I'll include both mysql and pgsql drivers once this feature added.

Rebcode: don't know if it's compatible with this kernel version, 
didn't tried.

I'll add a remark module for it  :-)  its adds dialected tags to 
html, sort of a functional approach to web.

Running Apache and Cheyenne on my IPOD nano.. 

Using a simple rebol 'read'' loop (10,000 hits) to a 4kb static page 
(localhost).

Apache - 1:41
Cheyenne - 0:52

Graham: you did a very good job with your WebMail. I wish the new 
RSP API and features would allow you to finish the work and release 
it !

cheyenne nearly twice as fast

Good news! Thanks Terry !

does cheyenne handle http 1.0 and 1.1 transparently (expecting yes, 
but need a specific answer)?

But a more elaborate benchmark may show closer results between these 
too. Size of files and OS have big impacts on the results.

1.0 & 1.1 : yes

dockimbel, I assume the benchmarks improve when caching is used?

but not exaustively tested yet. The unit tests are still under development

Caching is on, by default, for files < 16kb

another testapp bug.. now the 16RSP won't fire, sends me back to 
login (previous error message is gone, and works fine with 4RSP)

Ok, working now.. had to clear the cookies

Sessions are not yet completly stable.

does fast-cgi need /command license?

No, it's a client implementation of my own (/Command implements a 
server-side FastCGI protocol)

Terry: this bug has been noted and will be fixed in next release.

thanks... so far, if everything works without bugs, I think you just 
made yourself a new user, I'll be testing it tomorrow.

HTTP support is stable, CGI are ok, RSP too, just avoid sessions 
for now. Next release will bring a complete rewrite of the session 
support for faster and more stable behaviour.

hum... there is one thing I am not sure I get, what do you mean by 
"server-side" (do you imply your's is not, and if so what does that 
really mean?)