Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to ACS Apache desirability vs. OpenACS/AOLServer combo?
pertains to folks running the ACS. Apache is continually improving
and Arsdigita has announced the completion of their port of the ACS
to Apache (See the Toolkit Fundamentals section of:
</blockquote>
AOLserver is also continually improving and lots since it's now open source. If you follow the AOLserver list, you'll see that there are people writing new things for it every day. I just got a message that someone wrote a blowfish encryption module for it.
AFAIK, ArsDigita did _nothing_ to ACS to "port it" to Apache. That is not a port. A new Apache Module was created to replicate the AOLserver Tcl API. As far as ACS goes, it will just just continue calling its Tcl procs doesn't matter where.
Of course, the mod_aolserver has none of the performance advantages that AOLserver has, namely multithreading and connection pooling.
<blockquote>interested they are in making the ACS available to as many people as
possible. I know that I would feel much more
confident running Apache simply because there are so many folks who
are familiar with it (and working to improve it).
</blockquote>
Let's just think about this: how long does it take for someone that has experience with any webserver to be familiar with AOLserver ? I mean, it's not a hard thing. AOLserver's simple, but efficient design is extremely nice for new users. The first time I installed AOLserver I had it up and running in less than half an hour. The first time I compiled AOLserver from scratch (with the right compiler) it was just a matter of doing a make and make install. How hard it is to get used to that ?
The first time I installed Apache I had to read all three configuration files and remember in which one of them was the setting I was trying to tweak. The first time I tried to compiled Apache I simply quit. I had better things to do with my time than try to figure out innards of Apache's configuration.
Another thing you have to keep in mind is that most of the Apache users simply _don't know_ about AOLserver. When Michael Cleverly told me about AOLserver and Philip's book, I was only used to Apache and thought that it was _the_ thing in webservers because of all the media hype around it. After I read Philip's book and installed AOLserver I never went back to Apache. I don't have a reason to.
<blockquote>Does AOLServer still maintain significant performance advantages over
Apache (especially regarding ACS/database thread use/performance)?
</blockquote>
Yes ! Apache is process based and a caching webserver. When Apache 2 matures, which won't happen in at least a year, then you'll be able to enjoy in Apache what AOLserver has been offering since 1995. Now that's improvement !!
<blockquote>Is it any more or less secure than Apache?
</blockquote>
This is up to the administrator.
<blockquote>Do I have to use AOLServer to benefit from the OpenACS/PostgreSQL
port? (that is, if I go with Arsdigita?s
Apache-based ACS am I back to being locked into Oracle?)
</blockquote>
If you want to go ahead and test OpenACS with mod_aolserver on Apache, that would be great. At least we would know. I don't think anyone has done it yet.
