[REBOL] Re: Apache
From: holger:rebol at: 22-May-2001 10:58
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 04:02:57PM +0200, Petr Krenzelok wrote:
> So if we are talking tools once again, why to abandon /Apache for e.g.?
/Apache has not been "abandoned", its concepts and goals have rather been integrated
into the regular Command 2.0 release. In the original plans /Apache used to be a version
of /Command (with similar intended pricing as /Command, but distributed and sold
separately) which would be provided in mod_rebol.so format instead of as a stand-alone
application.
This concept has been superceded by FastCGI support in Command 2.0. FastCGI support
is superior to the /Apache module-based solution in many ways:
- It works with other web browsers than just Apache.
- In one mode of operation it is fully compatible with CGI, i.e. no changes to scripts
or calling conventions are needed. Only the Apache config has to be changed.
- In another mode it allows the parallel, multiplexed execution of multiple requests
within a single REBOL process, through fastcgi:// ports.
- It works across networks, i.e. the REBOL FastCGI processes do not have to run on
the same box as Apache.
- It is compatible with TCP-proxy-based load balancing environments.
- Even in multiplexed mode the changes to existing CGI scripts are minimal.
- Performance actually tends to be better than with a module-based approach, because
of better parallelization, separation, buffering and piping of requests through TCP.
See www.fastcgi.com for more information on this.
/Apache could not support any of these things. The only advantage of /Apache over
FastCGI is that /Apache provides a more direct link to the Apache server, allowing
you to do some unusual things in Apache's request pipeline. Those features are
rarely used though.
The bottom line is that Command 2.0 with FastCGI provides more functionality, better
performance and, being part of the Command and Command/View bundle, at an overall
lower price than was intended with /Apache.
--
Holger Kruse
[holger--rebol--com]
