It would please me if Zope was able to treat the hostname portion of a URL as another object to be traversed (with a default if no objects seem to match the hostname). Did that make sense? Basically, I want to publish multiple different web sites with different domain names but with a single ZHTTPServer and a single point of administration. Is this something that's already been planned, or should I try my hand at it? Mike. -- --- | Mike Pelletier Work: 519-746-1607 /opeware! | Software Developer Home: 519-725-7710 --- | mike@zopeware.com Fax: 519-746-7566 http://www.zopeware.com | Zopeware is not endorsed by Digital Creations
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Mike Pelletier wrote:
It would please me if Zope was able to treat the hostname portion of a URL as another object to be traversed (with a default if no objects seem to match the hostname). Did that make sense? Basically, I want to publish multiple different web sites with different domain names but with a single ZHTTPServer and a single point of administration. Is this something that's already been planned, or should I try my hand at it?
Use Apache with mod_rewrite/mod_proxy. IMHO this is outside of the scope of Zope -> Zope should be website development tool, not a Webserver. Andreas -- Win95: n., A huge annoying boot virus that causes random spontaneous system crashes, usually just before saving a massive project. Easily cured by UNIX. See also MS-DOS, IBM-DOS, DR-DOS, Win 3.x, Win98.
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
Basically, I want to publish multiple different web sites with different domain names but with a single ZHTTPServer and a single point of administration.
Use Apache with mod_rewrite/mod_proxy.
I was going to complain that this didn't fulfill such-and-such a need, but after R'ing some Apache RM, I just can't think of any (coolness aside). I had never used mod_rewrite before Zope came out. It's starting to seem like you can use it to cure all the world's evils, or at least hack around them. Thanks! Mike. -- --- | Mike Pelletier Work: 519-746-1607 /opeware! | Software Developer Home: 519-725-7710 --- | mike@zopeware.com Fax: 519-746-7566 http://www.zopeware.com | Zopeware is not endorsed by Digital Creations
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Andreas Kostyrka scratched:
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Mike Pelletier wrote:
It would please me if Zope was able to treat the hostname portion of a URL as another object to be traversed (with a default if no objects seem to match the hostname). Did that make sense? Basically, I want to publish multiple different web sites with different domain names but with a single ZHTTPServer and a single point of administration. Is this something that's already been planned, or should I try my hand at it?
Use Apache with mod_rewrite/mod_proxy.
IMHO this is outside of the scope of Zope -> Zope should be website development tool, not a Webserver.
Andreas
Why not? What if websites were not built but staged. If Zope was a server it could do so much more than the standard webserver is now capable of. I have used development tools that constructed the standard website like Zope could, build pages based on what the designer wants, this works fine for what we know of websites right now. Think for a minute if a designer could stage content, arrange layout, and leave the building up to the user. A truly dynamic website. Consider this, a simple example of a three tiered website designed to serve content based on the users interaction with the website's content and not with the webserver. A site has a top level with each object assigned three properties, propA = 1, propB =2, propC =3. A user enters the site at page 1 and selects a link to the second level, these properties carry with him. The DTML gets these properties and displays the pages accordingly. The DTML also changes the propB to 12. Our user now clicks a link to the second tier of the site, the DTML displays the page according to the properties of a user who came from the second level of tier one. The DTML displays the page, loading content in differing fashions for users with propB =12 than for users with propB = 2. The idea of storing little chunks of content, reused in different contexts, based on what a user is doing "right now" is very powerful. The content can be updated in realtime, the display of that content can change depending on how a user arrives at a given document, when he arrives, and where he has been before. We have built sites like this, but the tools available can only do this staticly, you end up with a thousand pages of navigation to display 100 pieces of content because you have to make a new page for each "context". You have tp prepare for every instance of of every potential user. Zope can allow you to stage the content, make it available to the entire website, the designer can use DTML to decide how and when this content is displayed on the fly based on user interaction. Zope could make the static page, delivered from disk, old hat, good for archival uses. The ability to deliver every page on the fly makes using a seperate server a burden, Apache would be only a path to Zope. Why not let Zope stand alone? DAve.
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Why not? What if websites were not built but staged. If Zope was a server it could do so much more than the standard webserver is now capable of. I have used development tools that constructed the standard website like Zope could, build pages based on what the designer wants, this works fine for what we know of websites right now.
Think for a minute if a designer could stage content, arrange layout, and leave the building up to the user. A truly dynamic website.
Consider this, a simple example of a three tiered website designed to serve content based on the users interaction with the website's content and not with the webserver.
A site has a top level with each object assigned three properties, propA = 1, propB =2, propC =3. A user enters the site at page 1 and selects a link to the second level, these properties carry with him. The DTML gets these properties and displays the pages accordingly. The DTML also changes the propB to 12. Our user now clicks a link to the second tier of the site, the DTML displays the page according to the properties of a user who came from the second level of tier one. The DTML displays the page, loading content in differing fashions for users with propB =12 than for users with propB = 2.
The idea of storing little chunks of content, reused in different contexts, based on what a user is doing "right now" is very powerful. The content can be updated in realtime, the display of that content can change depending on how a user arrives at a given document, when he arrives, and where he has been before.
We have built sites like this, but the tools available can only do this staticly, you end up with a thousand pages of navigation to display 100 pieces of content because you have to make a new page for each "context". You have tp prepare for every instance of of every potential user. Zope can allow you to stage the content, make it available to the entire website, the designer can use DTML to decide how and when this content is displayed on the fly based on user interaction.
Zope could make the static page, delivered from disk, old hat, good for archival uses. The ability to deliver every page on the fly makes using a seperate server a burden, Apache would be only a path to Zope. Why not let Zope stand alone? Because there are small things like SSL (crypto done right is not trivial by default, and would bring Zope users into the international arms dealer category.). mod_rewrite in it's own right is ALSO interesting, ...
Than there is http/1.1, which is not trivial to get right, witness the fact that IE still doesn't get it right in extreme cases :( Dealing with static sites. (If you want ZopeHTTPServer on port 80, than it must also deal with the occasional static website, as many (PAYING) customers will want such a beast :( ) Dealing with external CGIs. (``No, I've paid $XXX to let this be developed, so now we'll use it.'') Than there is marketing and public relations. (``So you are using what Webserver? Zope? Why are you not using Apache?'') Additionally, you have NOT given one good argument why to do away with Apache. Anything you've mentioned is also available with apache/pcgi :) Andreas -- Win95: n., A huge annoying boot virus that causes random spontaneous system crashes, usually just before saving a massive project. Easily cured by UNIX. See also MS-DOS, IBM-DOS, DR-DOS, Win 3.x, Win98.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Andreas Kostyrka scratched:
On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Dave Goodrich wrote: snip
/snip
Zope could make the static page, delivered from disk, old hat, good for archival uses. The ability to deliver every page on the fly makes using a seperate server a burden, Apache would be only a path to Zope. Why not let Zope stand alone? Because there are small things like SSL (crypto done right is not trivial by default, and would bring Zope users into the international arms dealer category.). mod_rewrite in it's own right is ALSO interesting, ...
Does EVERY website use SSL? Must SSL be handled from the same server in every instance?
Than there is http/1.1, which is not trivial to get right, witness the fact that IE still doesn't get it right in extreme cases :(
Then Zope is not capable a HTTP 1.1?
Dealing with static sites. (If you want ZopeHTTPServer on port 80, than it must also deal with the occasional static website, as many (PAYING) customers will want such a beast :( )
Dealing with external CGIs. (``No, I've paid $XXX to let this be developed, so now we'll use it.'')
Than there is marketing and public relations. (``So you are using what Webserver? Zope? Why are you not using Apache?'')
It was not that long ago people said "Internet Information Server will never have the market share of Apache".
Additionally, you have NOT given one good argument why to do away with >Apache. Anything you've mentioned is also available with apache/pcgi :) > Andreas
Yes it is, but it also could be done without Apache. I believe, mind you it's opinion, that Medusa offers several advantages over Apache. Have you looked at the website? http://squirl.nightmare.com/medusa/ I don't think Zope should NOT run behind Apache, there are a lot of people who would benifit from it's abilities. Certainly there are plenty of Web admins who have a large customer base on Apache and want to add Zope's capabilities to their arsenal. But there are also those of us who do not have a customer base on Apache, I'm interested in using Zope to build a web application, I don't need Apache, I'm here because of Zope's built in server and I'd like to see the server abilities extended as well as Zopes other assets. There is more than one way to skin a cat ;^) DAve.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Than there is marketing and public relations. (``So you are using what Webserver? Zope? Why are you not using Apache?'')
It was not that long ago people said "Internet Information Server will never have the market share of Apache".
And they were right. :)
Yes it is, but it also could be done without Apache. I believe, mind you it's opinion, that Medusa offers several advantages over Apache. Have you looked at the website? http://squirl.nightmare.com/medusa/
I believe a version of Zope that uses Medusa is already in the works. Look here for the basic announcement: http://www.egroups.com/list/zope/465.html --- John Eikenberry [jae@taos.kavi.com - http://taos.kavi.com/~jae/] ______________________________________________________________ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both." --B. Franklin
>> Than there is http/1.1, which is not trivial to get right, witness the >> fact that IE still doesn't get it right in extreme cases :( Dave> Then Zope is not capable a HTTP 1.1? No, but Zope, not being a web server, doesn't generally have to track all the arcane bits of the HTTP protocol as it evolves. (It is good to keep in touch, but the Zope developers' hands needn't get as dirty with HTTP as, say, the Apache developers'.) Like anything else, HTTP has tended toward more complexity rather than less as it has matured. More people get involved, more ideas get into the stream, and when you're all done, out pops a much more complex beast than you started with. Skip Montanaro | Mojam: "Uniting the World of Music" http://www.mojam.com/ skip@calendar.com | Musi-Cal: http://concerts.calendar.com/ 518-372-5583
Dave Goodrich wrote:
It was not that long ago people said "Internet Information Server will never have the market share of Apache".
and according to http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey, they're still right - Dec 98: Apache 53.78% (+0.76%), IIS 23.68% (+0.26%). IIS is gaining usage share, but Apache's gaining it faster.
But there are also those of us who do not have a customer base on Apache, I'm interested in using Zope to build a web application, I don't need Apache, I'm here because of Zope's built in server and I'd like to see the server abilities extended as well as Zopes other assets.
Sure, but think of it in terms of "the work that helps the greatest number" - work on Zope itself will help everyone who uses it, while work on ZopeHTTPServer will only benefit those who run it under that. While that's not to say "don't work on ZopeHTTPServer at all", it could be considered to be a lower priority item. And as others have noted, getting all of HTTP/1.1 right is _hard_. -- Anthony Baxter, NextTelecom. email:anthony@interlink.com.au, voice: +61 416 271 170
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Does EVERY website use SSL? Must SSL be handled from the same server in every EVERY Zope site SHOULD (or depending upon policy MUST) use SSL, as it transmits basic auth info, which equals to clear text passwords over the wire without using https.
So yes. Especially, as with Zope you cannot just rsync/ssh your data onto the server.
instance?
Than there is http/1.1, which is not trivial to get right, witness the fact that IE still doesn't get it right in extreme cases :(
Then Zope is not capable a HTTP 1.1? Nope. That depends upon the Webserver. And ZopeHTTPServer is HTTP/1.0.
But that's basically my point: It depends upon the Webserver.
It was not that long ago people said "Internet Information Server will never have the market share of Apache". Since does it have it?
Additionally, you have NOT given one good argument why to do away with >Apache. Anything you've mentioned is also available with apache/pcgi :) > Andreas
Yes it is, but it also could be done without Apache. I believe, mind you it's opinion, that Medusa offers several advantages over Apache. Have you looked at the website? http://squirl.nightmare.com/medusa/ Hmmm. Still nobody explained to me how to handle ``long'' tasks correctly and easily with Medusa. (With long tasks I mean say tarring up some files, or doing a SQL query that may take say 2-3 seconds.)
There is more than one way to skin a cat ;^) Without question ;) But I'd rather say that a well working Zope application server is more important at the moment that writing an fullfledged Webserver that happens to be only usable with Zope. (And it is not that trivial, HTTP/1.0, HTTP/1.1, NamedVirtualHosts, IP-based hosts, etc., AND there is a nice implementation of this already, it's called Apache ;) )
Andreas -- Win95: n., A huge annoying boot virus that causes random spontaneous system crashes, usually just before saving a massive project. Easily cured by UNIX. See also MS-DOS, IBM-DOS, DR-DOS, Win 3.x, Win98.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Andreas Kostyrka scratched:
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Dave Goodrich wrote:
Does EVERY website use SSL? Must SSL be handled from the same server in every EVERY Zope site SHOULD (or depending upon policy MUST) use SSL, as it transmits basic auth info, which equals to clear text passwords over the wire without using https.
So yes. Especially, as with Zope you cannot just rsync/ssh your data onto the server.
As a Mac admin I must confess to a certain lazyness about security, we are generally left alone by the "evil doers", as a dedicated Mac server is too much work to hack. There are lots of Unix servers to play inside of easily, so the hackers leave us alone. My only problems have been spam attacks and Communigate has solved that problem.
instance?
Than there is http/1.1, which is not trivial to get right, witness the fact that IE still doesn't get it right in extreme cases :(
Then Zope is not capable a HTTP 1.1? Nope. That depends upon the Webserver. And ZopeHTTPServer is HTTP/1.0.
But that's basically my point: It depends upon the Webserver.
It was not that long ago people said "Internet Information Server will never have the market share of Apache". Since does it have it?
It doesn't, but you KNEW what I ment by IIS didn't you? It doesn't have to be Apache to sell a service. There are lots of IIS servers here in Seattle, take it from a Mac/Linux man, I could do a LOT more business if I wanted to switch to NT.
Additionally, you have NOT given one good argument why to do away with >Apache. Anything you've mentioned is also available with apache/pcgi :) > Andreas
Yes it is, but it also could be done without Apache. I believe, mind you it's opinion, that Medusa offers several advantages over Apache. Have you looked at the website? http://squirl.nightmare.com/medusa/
Hmmm. Still nobody explained to me how to handle ``long'' tasks correctly and easily with Medusa. (With long tasks I mean say tarring up some files, or doing a SQL query that may take say 2-3 seconds.)
There is more than one way to skin a cat ;^) Without question ;) But I'd rather say that a well working Zope application server is more important at the moment that writing an fullfledged Webserver that happens to be only usable with Zope. (And it is not that trivial, HTTP/1.0, HTTP/1.1, NamedVirtualHosts, IP-based hosts, etc., AND there is a nice implementation of this already, it's called Apache ;) )
Andreas
You are an excellent antagonist, and I do not know enough about server "guts" to converse with you, much less argue ;^) Enough to say I was raised to question the norm, never been afraid to click "go", and I will always think that sacred cows make great hamburgers. I'll continue to pursue the Zope server, as I'm certain you will pursue the pcgi approach, and I think we both will have a very cool tool. Thanks for the input, DAve.
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
Additionally, you have NOT given one good argument why to do away with Apache. Anything you've mentioned is also available with apache/pcgi :)
I think the biggest advantage that Zope offers would be consitancy of management. I prefer working with Zope's over apache with it's flat files. Although most of your arguments are still valid, and so I would rather see better intergration with apache. --------------------------------------------------- - Scott Robertson Phone: 714.972.2299 - - CodeIt Computing Fax: 714.972.2399 - - http://codeit.com - ---------------------------------------------------
Hi, Yeah, like a Zope-based control panel for diddling Apache (ala Comanche or whatever the "along side Apache" tools are...) Scott Robertson wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Andreas Kostyrka wrote:
Additionally, you have NOT given one good argument why to do away with Apache. Anything you've mentioned is also available with apache/pcgi :)
I think the biggest advantage that Zope offers would be consitancy of management. I prefer working with Zope's over apache with it's flat files. Although most of your arguments are still valid, and so I would rather see better intergration with apache.
--------------------------------------------------- - Scott Robertson Phone: 714.972.2299 - - CodeIt Computing Fax: 714.972.2399 - - http://codeit.com - ---------------------------------------------------
-- Cheers, --ldl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LD Landis ldl@HealthPartners.Com N0YRQ Voice 612/883-5511 Fax 612/883-6363 HealthPartners, 8100 34th Avenue So, PO Box 1309, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1309 Shape your life not from your memories, but from your hopes. (Borrowed) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (8)
-
Andreas Kostyrka -
Anthony Baxter -
Dave Goodrich -
John Eikenberry -
LD Landis -
Mike Pelletier -
Scott Robertson -
skip＠calendar.com