[Mono-list] RE: mod_mono + httpd

[Alexandre Miguel Pedro Gomes]

> Why IIS?

Currently, afaik, there are two major webservers, one for Linux (Apache)
other for Windows (IIS). Of couse for windows there is the "real" .Net, but
mono runs on windows, but when talking about web and mono you have only two
choises XSP or Apache.

What about those that have old applications in ASP3 and wish to migrate/use
to mono?

I see many people making a point of view close to:  Windows-Closed Source
and Linux-Open Source. Isn't there a segment in the market that wish to use
Windows but migrate smothly to opensource? The easiest step is to make their
applications run on opensource software, on windows, and only then move to
linux. Again, the example of ASP3 that doesn't run completly on Linux.

Also, mono has only implemented XSP and modmono, that seems pretty
unsuficient to me. If look closely, and/or talk to mono debugger mantainer,
you'll see the debugger is under a large refactoring process because it,
initially, was done with one frontend in mind, when they started to
integrate with other frontends (MonoDevelop for instance) they found that
many things weren't well designed to support that. I suppose that if mono
openned a few more fronts in web servers the same could happen.



On 12/27/05, Christopher Bergström <cbergstrom at netsyncro.com> wrote:
>
> Alexandre Miguel Pedro Gomes wrote:
>
> > Possible? Yes. You can use XSP as a standalone server.
> >
> > If you really wish to use another webserver you'll have to get/do a
> > "plugin" to that server, something similar to mod_mono.
> >
> > I think it would be very cool if we had a component to IIS at least.
>
> I've been looking around about this same thing.. lighttpd (ask lighty)
> looks interesting for the performance side of things.. There are a few
> features or modules that aren't implemented yet.. However, if you're
> just doing a standalone server with all trusted sites it could maybe pay
> off two fold..
>
> 1) claims of better performance (no comment as I've not tested it yet.)
> 2) utilizing a distributed backend for dynamic pages.. (currently they
> have PHP doing this, but I don't see much reason why it couldn't apply
> to mono as well.)
> 3) If nothing else it does produce a much smaller memory footprint (ymmv
> and it depends on how well you've tuned apache)
>
> If someone is sincerely interested in a lighty module for Mono let me
> know and I'll investigate it further..
>
> Miguel.... Why IIS?
>
> Cheers,
>
> C.
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
>



--
Alexandre Gomes, Portugal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-list/attachments/20051227/7fb6dbcb/attachment.html