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

[Dave Sherohman <esper@usinternet.com>]

Eric M. Hopper said:
> 	It sounds like what you want is the second tier of a three-tier
> client server system.

Hmm...  Yeah, that's a good description of where it fits.

> In all likelihood, the manipulations performed on the
> data are somewhat complex, and subject to a whole bunch of rules about
> what constitutes good or bad manipulations.

It's actually pretty simple, with the exception that one of the types that
goes into the hierarchy (the actual nodes of a call tree) supports scripting,
but the script compile/decompile (such as it is) engine is already written
and just needs to be plugged into the appropriate place.

> 	If my StreamModule system were more mature, and the Common Data
> Language (preprocessor?  compiler?) were written, I'd recommend my
> StreamModule system.  As it is, I recommend (as much as I dislike it)
> CORBA.

That's still a good deal heavier than I think is necessary.  While the server
may end up being heavily-OOP on the inside, I'm looking at a simple telnet-
based protocol along the lines of SMTP or NNTP.  The basic flow is to just
identify the thing you want to work with, then issue commands against it
(with the option of embedding the navigation within a command).

> 	If you had a surefire way to do session tracking over HTTP, it
> would be a different matter, but you really don't.  Cookies don't really
> solve the problem.

Even then, there's all the extra wrapping and unwrapping of transmissions for
HTTP that seems unneccesary to me.  It seems a lot simpler to just send a
string and get a string back.  (Although I suppose there's probably a library
out there that allows you to do this under HTTP and takes care of all the
extra steps behind the scenes.)

> 	Minimizing server processes is pointless under UNIX.

Any particular reason?

-- 
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+