Hello Shane, This would be great. I just compiled my first kernel to upgrade to 2.4.1. Yeah!!! Zope/ZServer fronted by Tux could be a tremendous tool. Allowing Tux to do as much of what it does best and allowing Zope to do as much as it does best would be unbeatable. If Zope could feed Tux cacheable objects without them being required to be on the filesystem, that would be great. One could develop their site pretty much the same way with the exception of using the Tux HTTP cache manager and selecting the objects to be cached. Tux will forward requests to Zope via either cgi or a user-module. Using cgi Tux doesn't cache the objects. It wouldn't be as big a gain. A user-module can take advantage of Tux's user-module API for handling requests and caching. But as I said, I don't read or program C so I don't know how to do this. I have started looking at some C tutorial material so I can at least understand some of the sample code. There is a sample program written for SpecWeb which gives a better example of it's user api. http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001128.tar.gz The CAD_u.c module. Tux is multiprocessor capable, so theoretically you could put Zope/ZEO on a multiprocessor machine with Tux and have an interesting time. :) For those who didn't read the initial post about Tux in the other thread here's info. ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/tux/tux-2.0/ http://www.redhat.com/products/software/ecommerce/tux/ Jimmie Houchin Shane Hathaway wrote:
Jimmie Houchin wrote:
I think it would be interesting to see Zope fronted by Tux. If there were a Tux cache manager for Zope that would be awesome.
Actually, if Tux works the way I think, an accelerated HTTP cache manager should be just what you're looking for. If you can just get Tux to forward requests to Zope, you should be home free!
I've been considering upgrading to 2.4.1, maybe this is a good reason to do it.
If I read the README correctly, it may also be possible to make use of Tux's server-side include directives to cache pieces of pages. If this worked, you'd almost be able to run cnn.com on a 486. ;-)
Shane