[Zope] Apache-Squid-Zope, Squid-Apache-Zope.. or just Squid-Z ope?

[Ausum Studio]

Ok. Squid-Zope looks like the way to go, although it's not that common up to
this moment. (I wonder whether a more straight way to handle virtual
domains, just as simple as it is in Apache, would make it more popular than
other solutions.)

I've suceeded at using Squid-Zope with a single domain, but never had enough
time to investigate pyredir to enable url rewrites, using W2K. I'd really
appreciate if anyone post a how-to on this particular subject.


Ausum


----- Original Message -----
From: <sean.upton@uniontrib.com>

> I agree... I saw a message on this list a few days back where someone
> mentioned Apache in front of Squid, which totally left me scratching my
head
> in confusion...
>
> Squid+ESI should be pretty powerful.  Since ZPT will do XML namespaces,
ESI
> should be supported without any issues, if you wanted to do this out of
the
> box (of course, you still would need to patch and compile Squid with the
ESI
> support).
>
> One other thing that Apache can't do (without mod_backhand, I think???) is
> truly load-balance, but Squid can with Zope 2.6+ (thanks to ICP support):
> Squid treats ZEO nodes as cache peers and removes them if they are down,
and
> also directs traffic according to load (updated constantly as function of
> response times).
>
> Sean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dieter Maurer [mailto:dieter@handshake.de]
>
>
> Ausum Studio writes:
>  > I know this has been treated before, but as much as I can see, people
use
>  > the three ways with apparent success.
>  > Within the context that ZC is funding Squid to implement ESI, would any
>  > member of the community try a theoretical resume (not a how-to) of the
>  > issues regarding using Squid to cache Zope? Which one of the three
>  > combinations is the best?
> I would go for Squid+Zope only. Why use an additional component (Apache),
> when it is not necessary?
>
>
> Dieter
>
>