[Grok-dev] Re: Admin UI name change suggestion

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> [snip]
>>> I agree with these observations, *however*, there needs to be a way to
>>> make "taking over the zope root" optionally in a very easy way: I
>>> forsee people do want to have multiple applications running in a Zope
>>> instance - I know I will need this option.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can introduce a grok.ApplicationRoot that will "take over"
>>> the zope root, where grok.Application retains the current behaviour?
>> I still like Shane's plan as he spelled it out, earlier.
>>
>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zope.grok.devel/2337
>>
>> What do people think about this?
> 
> Actually we found several problems with the plan in that thread, and I
> replaced the idea with the following:
> 
> "Wait... here's something simpler.  There could be a page in the Grok UI
> that lets people configure which application to use by incoming port
> number.  For example, I might say that port 8080 serves helloapp, 8081
> serves helloapp-dev, and 8082 serves grokadmin.  If the server gets a
> request on an unconfigured port, it falls back to grokadmin.  Adding a
> port requires a change to zope.conf, but that's easy to explain.  Hmm,
> yeah, I like that idea a lot better.  No funny ++app++ names, and if
> users accidentally lock themselves out of the grok administration UI,
> all they have to do is add another HTTP port to zope.conf."
> 
> I'm still pretty happy with the revised idea.

If you're going to use separate ports, why not actually deploy them in 
separate instances/sandboxes anyway? Separate processes will likely 
perform better on multicore machines, anyweay. And there are other 
advantages regarding flexibility (which is the whole point of the 
multiple-app-per-instance discussion, isn't it?).

Perhaps I'm missing a point, though.


-- 
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training