Sample Web application

[Ian Bicking]

On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 10:01, A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> On 09 Jul 2003 20:53:17 -0500, 
> 	Ian Bicking <ianb at colorstudy.com> wrote:
> > But more generally, I can't stand writing about how to work around
> > problems, when (as a programmer) it is within my power to fix those
> > problems.  It seems far better to spend time fixing problems than merely
> > documenting them.
> 
> I don't believe it's possible to fix the installation problems.  Quixote
> works with Apache, IIS, AOLserver, Medusa, and Twisted; there seems nothing 
> that can be done to simplify things across that entire range.  

Well, it wasn't Quixote I was talking about.  It was more things like
jonpy (with wt templates, specifically), or Spyce, and in general the
frameworks that were more closely tied to Apache, and to non-standard
configuration (Albatross, in contrast, uses plain CGI scripts, so
configuration was easy).

So of course installation can be improved.  Quixote works with all those
environments, Webware should do it exactly the same, JOTWeb should do it
the same, etc.  Some of these systems are (close to) as flexible as
Quixote for deployment, most aren't anywhere close.  Also, the work that
goes into installing one system is usually not helpful when installing
another.  Not only should all the frameworks be similarly flexible, but
they should *do it in the same way*.

> It can be made easier in one particular case, of course.  For example, 
> setting up an SCGI application with Apache requires three steps:
> 
> 	1) Compile mod_scgi and install it.  (On Debian unstable, 
> 	   you can install it with apt-get.
> 	2) Add a directive to httpd.conf and restart:
> 	   <Location "/appurl">
>               SCGIServer 127.0.0.1 6500
>               SCGIHandler On
>            </Location>
> 	3) Run the SCGI application so that it listens to port 6500.

mod_skunkweb, for instance, has a few more features than mod_scgi or
mod_webkit for failure conditions (if the backend application
disappears), though both have more than mod_scgi, and mod_webkit has
something for handling files by extension as well.

These features do make it a little more complicated, but they solve
particular problems, and reducing duplication would help us all.  All
three protocols (mod_scgi, mod_skunkweb, and mod_webkit) do almost
exactly the same thing.  And then there's FastCGI...

> The Dulcinea package (http://www.mems-exchange.org/software/dulcinea/)
> includes scripts for running multiple web sites on a machine and easily
> configuring them, but that's a feature that isn't being pushed very
> strongly, and we made little effort to make this feature usable by
> outsiders.

Which portions are you referring to?  None of the modules you describe
in the overview seem to apply.

  Ian