headers
Bill Schwab | 13 Jul 03:31
Favicon

About Seaside 3.0

Philippe,

Why?  That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it
correctly.  Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can
thanks to the cryptography group's efforts.  With some extra effort, it
could serve secure pages on its own.  Just about any otherwise
non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure
web server.

Bill

Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com 
=================================

SSL belongs into Apache not Comanche.

Cheers
Philippe

Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bschwab <at> anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ramon Leon | 13 Jul 04:24

RE: About Seaside 3.0

> Philippe,
> 
> Why?  That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it
> correctly.  Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can
> thanks to the cryptography group's efforts.  With some extra 
> effort, it
> could serve secure pages on its own.  Just about any otherwise
> non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure
> web server.
> 
> Bill

Bill, a simple question, why do so many Smalltalker's insist on reinventing
the wheel?  Apache isn't just a web server, it's *the* platform of the
Internet and it's not some trivial thing to simply reimplement and replace
everything it can do for you out of the box.  Isn't it about time to learn
how to play nice with the outside world and stop insisting that every single
piece of the tool chain be implemented in Smalltalk?  

Despite what you're implying, Apache is not that difficult to setup and
there's tons and tons stuff available for making it do anything you want.
As for setting it up with Seaside, you could easily find a dozen different
working configurations prewritten with a trivial look through the Seaside
forums.  Yes, that stuff should be easier to find, possibly posted on the
seaside.st site in a visible place.  With a prewritten config, setting up
Apache probably takes less time than installing Seaside.  This is all it
takes...

<VirtualHost *:80>
    ServerName yoursite.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Victor | 13 Jul 04:46

Re: About Seaside 3.0

Hola querida,

Esta todo bien?
Te llame hoy durante el dia al cell phone y nunca hubo respuesta.
Te llame a la mañana y no estabas en tu casa.  Te acabo de llamar y no hay 
nadie ahí.
Por favor decime.

Love,
V.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ramon Leon" <ramon.leon <at> allresnet.com>
To: "'Seaside - general discussion'" <seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0

>> Philippe,
>>
>> Why?  That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it
>> correctly.  Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can
>> thanks to the cryptography group's efforts.  With some extra
>> effort, it
>> could serve secure pages on its own.  Just about any otherwise
>> non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure
>> web server.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Bill, a simple question, why do so many Smalltalker's insist on
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Victor | 13 Jul 05:18

Re: About Seaside 3.0

Sorry, this was a totally miss sent message.

Victor

==============================================

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Victor" <vmgoldberg <at> verizon.net>
To: "Seaside - general discussion" <seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0

> Hola querida,
>
> Esta todo bien?
> Te llame hoy durante el dia al cell phone y nunca hubo respuesta.
> Te llame a la mañana y no estabas en tu casa.  Te acabo de llamar y no hay 
> nadie ahí.
> Por favor decime.
>
> Love,
> V.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ramon Leon" <ramon.leon <at> allresnet.com>
> To: "'Seaside - general discussion'" <seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:24 PM
> Subject: RE: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Piero Sartini | 13 Jul 05:01

Re: About Seaside 3.0

Am Sonntag, 13. Juli 2008 04:24:30 schrieb Ramon Leon:
> Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config file
> and avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools
> available to you?

Apache rewriting is no nice solution. For example, you can't get the client 
certificate in your application. Performance is bad. And I think the client 
IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...) 

People had the same problem using Java containers and came up with AJP:
http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-3.3-doc/AJPv13.html

Maybe its possible to implement this in smalltalk? There is good support in 
apache and lighttpd, including load balancing and things like that.

	Piero
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ramon Leon | 13 Jul 05:10

RE: About Seaside 3.0

> Apache rewriting is no nice solution.

Many would disagree.

> For example, you can't get the client 
> certificate in your application. 

That might be a good reason, I'll grant you that one.

> Performance is bad. 

Hardly an argument for a moving to an even slower single threaded non
scaleable Smalltalk web server and tying it up doing boring stuff like
serving static content while chewing up you're very limited application
resources which have to do all their work on the same thread.

> And I think the client IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...) 

Not true at all.  

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Piero Sartini | 13 Jul 05:58

Re: About Seaside 3.0

Am Sonntag, 13. Juli 2008 05:10:52 schrieb Ramon Leon:
> > Apache rewriting is no nice solution.
> Many would disagree.

admitted :)

> > Performance is bad.
>
> Hardly an argument for a moving to an even slower single threaded non
> scaleable Smalltalk web server and tying it up doing boring stuff like
> serving static content while chewing up you're very limited application
> resources which have to do all their work on the same thread.

True. Just wanted to mention that there exists a protocol designed to optimize 
the communication between apache and application server.

	Piero
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ramon Leon | 13 Jul 06:32

RE: About Seaside 3.0


> True. Just wanted to mention that there exists a protocol 
> designed to optimize 
> the communication between apache and application server.
> 
> 	Piero

Yup, and if you look you'll see Phillippe already posted a low priority
feature about implementing that nearly a week ago.

Issue 89: Provide an AJP connector
http://code.google.com/p/seaside/issues/detail?id=89

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sean Allen | 14 Jul 19:03

Re: About Seaside 3.0


On Jul 12, 2008, at 11:01 PM, Piero Sartini wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 13. Juli 2008 04:24:30 schrieb Ramon Leon:
>> Is it really worth all that effort to avoid this tiny little config  
>> file
>> and avoiding using one of the most solid, stable, and powerful tools
>> available to you?
>
> IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...)

You can easily take care of that.

you can use the X-Forwarded-For header.

the docs are skimpy but its in place.

Its even easier to get working with nginx.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Boris Popov | 13 Jul 05:14

Re: About Seaside 3.0

Also, further up the scale you have load balancer farms that offload all that boring stuff and proxy the rest to your application, be it seaside or ruby or whatnot. There's a reason they exist and we shouldn't hesitate to delegate a bit and focus on the stuff that makes a real difference.

Cheers!

-Boris (via BlackBerry)

----- Original Message -----
From: seaside-bounces <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org <seaside-bounces <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org>
To: 'Seaside - general discussion' <seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sat Jul 12 20:10:52 2008
Subject: RE: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0

> Apache rewriting is no nice solution.

Many would disagree.

> For example, you can't get the client
> certificate in your application.

That might be a good reason, I'll grant you that one.

> Performance is bad.

Hardly an argument for a moving to an even slower single threaded non
scaleable Smalltalk web server and tying it up doing boring stuff like
serving static content while chewing up you're very limited application
resources which have to do all their work on the same thread.

> And I think the client IP is lost as well (but not sure with that...)

Not true at all. 

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com

_______________________________________________
seaside mailing list
seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

_______________________________________________
seaside mailing list
seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Philippe Marschall | 13 Jul 08:59

Re: About Seaside 3.0

You will have Apache as a frontend anyway because:
- there is to my knowledge no way to run Squeak on a privileged port
without giving it root rights
- there is to my knowledge no way to generate Apache style access logs
with Kom. The ones that can be read by a whole lot of tools like
AWStats.
- Apache will still be running when your image is long gone and can
serve a nice 503 page
- less bitching with your admin and security people

Second, HTTPS/SSL really eats CPU cycles. Thats why a lot of sites
like GMail use it only for login and then switch back to HTTP.

Once you have accepted that there will always be an Apache frontend
implementing a web server in Smalltalk doesn't make a whole lot of
sense anymore. Something like an AJP connector will do fine.

Cheers
Philippe

2008/7/13 Bill Schwab <BSchwab <at> anest.ufl.edu>:
> Philippe,
>
> Why?  That then forces users to set up Apache, and then configure it
> correctly.  Squeak/Pharo should be able to do SSL on its own, and can
> thanks to the cryptography group's efforts.  With some extra effort, it
> could serve secure pages on its own.  Just about any otherwise
> non-Seaside service could benefit from such a simple to manage secure
> web server.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com
> =================================
>
> SSL belongs into Apache not Comanche.
>
> Cheers
> Philippe
>
> Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
> University of Florida
> Department of Anesthesiology
> PO Box 100254
> Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
>
> Email: bschwab <at> anest.ufl.edu
> Tel: (352) 846-1285
> FAX: (352) 392-7029
>
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside <at> lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane