[Zope] - Virtual servers

[Andreas Kostyrka]

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.