World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4808x2] | A few small intranet apps in a couple of TOP 5 french company are using Cheyenne and RSP. |
Sorry, yes it's for the company Will is working for. | |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4810] | I did release my Hylafax web portal which I know a few people are using :) |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4811] | And we have also a big product using Cheyenne/RSP with already a few dozens customers. |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4812] | what does it do? |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4813] | I prefer to keep it "under the radar" for a few more weeks. ;-) |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4814x2] | who's radar? |
Microsoft? :) | |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4816] | I'd like it would be *that* big. :-) |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4817x4] | I did build a web portal to my medical database .. but too busy to keep that going. Have to learn a lot more jQuery .... |
Still, I have a few users of that as well. | |
that's what I use for filling in Acrobat forms programmatically. | |
So, that's you, me, will .. possibly Terry. Anyone else? | |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4821] | I see Cheyenne as a web-window to REBOL apps. |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4822] | what does that mean? |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4823] | I build REBOL apps, databases, UIs, scripts. If I want some kind of web access to that, Cheyenne is key. I don't see Cheyenne as just another web server. |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4824] | I have been loath to push Cheyenne much because of the freezing I was seeing before. |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4825] | Dockimbel, let's say R3 was done and most bugs were squashed, would you then build Cheyenne for R3 and would it be from scratch? |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4826] | the inability to run more than one Cheyenne server at the same time has been a problem too. |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4827] | I didn't saw such "freezing" since september 2008 (the last one that happened here). I guess that the last fix about IE POST issue was the last possible cause of such problem. |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4828] | I don't see it anymore because now I use a Rebol client to access Cheyenne and not a web browser. |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4829] | R3: when it will be feature complete and in final beta stage, sure I will. I'll probably rewrite complety the lower level networking code and try to keep as much as possible the higher level code. |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4830] | what role would uniserve play, if networking is completely async and threading is possible in R3? |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4831] | UniServe is a thin framework layer other the raw port! stuff. It provides an event-oriented framework for implementing server or client side protocols. Some UniServe events are same as the lower async ones : on-connect, on-close. Other are higher level such as : on-receive (trigger when a given amount of data or a given sequence is received). |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4832] | Did I mention I'd like to see a zope clone one day :) |
Robert 21-May-2009 [4833] | response/Forward: This looks good. from the docs I see that it's possible to forward to a new RSP page. Will this work with a SHTML page as well? |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4834] | did you mean ssi ? |
Maxim 21-May-2009 [4835] | graham, you can run MANY cheyenne servers on the same system . and they can be handling several thousand requests / hour each without failure. at my client cheyenne is probably the most stable server application they have, a part from apache. |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4836x2] | UniServe still has a purpose in R3, but it implementation will be much lighter and it will run much faster. Btw, one of UniServe's plugin, Task-master, is in charge of running and exchanging data with external processes given true multitasking abilities to UniServe's based products (RSP scripts are evaluated in such helper processes). R3 multithreading will make multitasking much simpler and way much faster. |
Robert: never tried, but as it loops over the whole HTTPd request processing pipeline, I think it should work with SHTML. | |
Maxim 21-May-2009 [4838] | the mod for access refusal is finished btw. it works really well, I ended up doing it in a mod and doing a few invisible actions within the make-response and task-done callbacks. |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4839] | Max, you don't get any errors when you run more than one instance? |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4840] | Graham: I'm putting this issue higher in my todo list, shouldn't require much work to make it fully multi-instance safe. |
Maxim 21-May-2009 [4841x3] | nope... no errors. the only issue is the Rconsole, but they don't use it. |
and obviously, you musn't have two servers with the same ports. | |
graham: what kind of errors are you getting? | |
Graham 21-May-2009 [4844] | I ignore them :) But I think logging is one |
Janko 21-May-2009 [4845x3] | as Henrik said.. cheyenne was certanly rebol "web-window" for me. The day I tested and saw it can handle 300req/sec I switched to rebol for webdev.. there is no way I would use ordinary CGI to make webapps at this time. |
for me too. = for me. | |
Graham: qwikitodo has close to 100 todos so it's "finished" although it will keep evolving, but it's a small project | |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4848] | that said, if R3 provides the capability of producing a really good webserver in 5 kb, I might use that instead. |
Janko 21-May-2009 [4849] | then I predich cheyenne will be really really good webserver in 4kb :) |
Maxim 21-May-2009 [4850] | henrik: "that said, if R3 provides the capability of producing a really good webserver in 5 kb, I might use that instead." what do you mean? a webserver is not just about tcp/ip.... its all the framework it provides. supporting the full range of reply errors, plugins, proper headers, etc , etc. you can't really make that kind of thing in 5kb. |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4851] | Well, maybe you can't. I haven't given any thought to what it takes. I was only thinking of the basics like large file transfer and proper working async ports and threading. some basics that a good webserver can do. |
Maxim 21-May-2009 [4852x2] | right now, I can tell you that cheyenne, from the client's point of view, does all of that. R3 will just allow it to be a bit faster, probably a bit more robust at the seams, and definitely easier to support, since some of the workarounds will now be implemented directly, and whatever is missing, doc can add/fix directly in binary. |
apache coders would already be jealous at how easy it really is to build a mod right now... even the configs can be specified within the mod with a few words. | |
Dockimbel 21-May-2009 [4854] | Having the TCP/IP part open-sourced in R3 will be great. It will allow to use much faster OS hooks for file transfers, extend the port! API to bind only on selected interfaces, etc...I wonder if the main event loop will be there also, so we can replace the not-scalable Select( ) call by other faster ones or even integrate libevent. That would definitely make Cheyenne able to handle a much higher number of connections. |
Maxim 21-May-2009 [4855x2] | :-) |
for my part, when R3 goes open, I'll be integrating liquid-paint with OpenGL asap... which will completely alleviate my need for /view. we will have a 3D native GUI :-) | |
Henrik 21-May-2009 [4857] | bringing it up to the best servers speed wise will get people's attention. |
older newer | first last |