Oh but existing webservers are already good enough, no? If its internal use only for a couple of two sysadmins, does it really need SSL and such?

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: Sun Jul 13 08:16:29 2008
Subject: Re: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0

I haven't been following the details of what Bill is proposing very
carefully but I can see the point he's trying to make.

Many people may have internal tools written in Seaside. I have
considered writing a web interface for user management at my current
job. It would essentially be a tool for administrators and help desk
staff to perform operations on accounts. Such an application would
have a half dozen total users, maybe 2 concurrent at maximum. Given
the sensitivity of some of the information, however, we would
certainly want the connection encrypted.

Such an application wouldn't need any of the power or reliability of
Apache really and it certainly isn't a problem for it to be running on
an alternate port (many of our existing administrative web
interfaces--including vendor-suplied ones--run on alternate ports).

As long as Apache is the easiest way to set this up, it's not the end
of the world for me to do so. But if there was a solution available
that didn't require the extra infrastructure I would certainly
consider using it. Obviously this isn't going to be the best scaling
architecture any time soon but that's ok.

I also understand the desire not to have everything re-implemented
(and then unmaintained) in Smalltalk. But if there's an itch that
someone wants to scratch and enough users that it ends up being
maintained, great.

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