Re (tilly) 5: Speed, and my sanity.

Does it really make a tremendous difference whether your external process is a webserver or a dedicated application server like you recommend?

If you understand how it all works, the correct answer is, "Not really." They are both the same idea. Same problem. Similar kinds of overhead (though the application server can be a little more stripped down).

Given that, is there really a call for rudeness on your part?

Comment on Re (tilly) 5: Speed, and my sanity.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re (tilly) 5: Speed, and my sanity. by mugwumpjism (Hermit) on Aug 27, 2001 at 22:38 UTC
Does it really make a tremendous difference whether your external process is a webserver or a dedicated application server like you recommend? Yes, it does. If it's an application server I only have to set one piece of software up and maintain it as changes to the site happen; if it's another apache instance, then I have to maintain two. Apologies if I sound rude; but I've heard far too many people preaching the wonders of mod_perl, when it's really quite a silly idea.	[reply]
Re: Re: Re (tilly) 5: Speed, and my sanity. by blakem (Monsignor) on Aug 27, 2001 at 23:53 UTC
I would heartilly disagree... it's quite possible to have a single httpd binary and two config files. Perhaps you should read the article I mentioned about properly setting this up... I would argue that this is as easy, if not easier than so-called "application servers" (Note: the only branded "application server" I have ever worked with is Vignette's Story Server (awful), so perhaps I am just jaded by that term) Or, perhaps, I'm just spoiled by having access to the apache internals w/o having to code in c. Besides, your initial gripe was about heavy procs being network bound. That is a sign of a poorly set up mod_perl shop. The proxy solution winnows that gripe down to "but then I have to maintain another conf file" which carries about 1/1000th the weight of your original complaint. -Blake	[reply]