Re: [TCLUG:12613] Reasons not to use Apache?

[Dave Sherohman <esper@usinternet.com>]

Christopher Palmer said:
> Sure. But that philosophy is one for batch-job software, not client-server
> software. What peer software will your server have? Is it going to pass
> batches of data along to other custom servers you write?

The server in question will be the back end for the system management client
application.  The tables it updates will control the operation of (existing)
telephony software.  Specifically, it will be used to create and maintain
call trees and manage hardware configuration for the machines that do the
actual work.

It will be replacing (at least) two existing programs, both of which
currently accomplish this by directly accessing the relevant tables (which
may be on a machine physically located halfway across the US).  The primary
objectives are to simplify setting up the telephony servers and eliminate the
need to have user accounts on all the servers you're managing.  (The existing
system is very ad hoc and only set up for internal users, so lots of manual
editing of tables is required as well as going through the management
programs.)

> You'd have to prove that to me. Can you post your docs?

'Fraid not.  Basic reasoning is that many of the things in the hierarchy are
password-protected and I'm not into sending passwords across the net for
every action the user takes.  The user should also be able to request locks
on things, which can be problematic if they're able to disappear without
notifying the server.

> Minimizing discrete server processes is a practical matter, if you ask me.

Even when it's a matter of 1 heavyweight server vs. 2 collectively smaller
ones?

-- 
Geek Code 3.1:  GCS d- s+: a- C++ UL++$ P+>+++ L++>++++ E- W--(++) N+ o+ !K
w---$ O M- !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP t 5++ X+ R++ tv- b++ DI++++ D G e* h+ r++ y+