From: Geoffrey T. <gta...@na...> - 2002-04-02 14:54:12
|
Now that 0.7 is out, I think it's high time that we moved Webware in the direction of a 1.0 release. What things still need to be done? The only item I feel is essential is to write reasonably complete automated tests. I'd like to be able to sync to the tip of CVS and run a single command to fully test every Webware component. Other things I'd like to see are improved documentation in some areas, and distutils support. But in my opinion, it's only the lack of automated testing that really prevents us from being at a 1.0 level. Thoughts? - Geoff |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@uc...> - 2002-04-09 02:04:38
|
On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 06:55, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > Now that 0.7 is out, I think it's high time that we moved Webware in the > direction of a 1.0 release. What things still need to be done? > Not essential, but nice-to-have: (based on my personal experience of picking up a copy of webware after a very long rest) * A wiz-bang GUI installer & launcher: click, click, click, open browser * A 'native' HTTP server: so I don't have to install apache and figure out cgi stuff or mod_webkit These are not important for hard-core developers, (which, I suppose is why they don't exist), but they are important if you want to lower the barriers to entry for newbies just trying things out (of whom there will be a lot when a 1.0 announcement hits the street). This is a personal itch, so I am very likely to scratch it myself, but I am open to contributions/suggestions. |
From: Tripp L. <tl...@pe...> - 2002-04-10 03:51:21
|
On 8 Apr 2002, Terrel Shumway wrote: > * A 'native' HTTP server: > so I don't have to install apache and > figure out cgi stuff or mod_webkit What I'd -really- like to do is build a minimalist Apache package that's easy to tweak for each project that wants an "embedded" HTTP server. Just about every project that lives behind a webserver (Subversion, for instance, which uses WebDAV: <http://subversion.tigris.org/>) eventually encounters this distribution issue. We could take the pains to make a lean, mean Apache package now and start something a bunch of projects could use. I say "we" because I have a habit of suggesting cool ideas but not really having enough cycles to see them through :) |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@uc...> - 2002-04-10 04:40:34
|
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 20:51, Tripp Lilley wrote: > We could take the pains to make a lean, mean Apache package What would it take to create a "lean, mean Apache"? mod_rewrite mod_webkit mod_ssl mod_auth_db mod_ssi (or mod_patch) cut out everything else? For future proofing, use Apache 2.0 now, rather than 1.3 (I started a mod_webkit port to 2.0 some time ago, but I never finished it, and would have to look around to find the code.) |
From: Clark C . E. <cc...@cl...> - 2002-04-10 05:19:50
|
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:37:24PM -0700, Terrel Shumway wrote: | On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 20:51, Tripp Lilley wrote: | > We could take the pains to make a lean, mean Apache package | | What would it take to create a "lean, mean Apache"? | | mod_rewrite | mod_webkit | mod_ssl | mod_auth_db | mod_ssi (or mod_patch) You forgot mod_gzip ... I'm afraid that a "lean, mean Apache" is probably a bad idea since on a single box (web address) you may have many different types of services you want to offer. A more welcome patch to me would be a way to segment Apache configuration for specific directories, so in httpd.conf, it would have a directive: SubConfig \webware /usr/local/webware/httpd.conf And thus, everything under the \webware path would be configured by the subordinate httpd.conf in the webware directory. But, alas, even this kinda sucks. ;( Clark |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2002-04-10 05:56:56
|
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 23:37, Terrel Shumway wrote: > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 20:51, Tripp Lilley wrote: > > We could take the pains to make a lean, mean Apache package > > What would it take to create a "lean, mean Apache"? > > mod_rewrite > mod_webkit > mod_ssl > mod_auth_db > mod_ssi (or mod_patch) > > cut out everything else? I think it wouldn't even include these -- rather, you'd also include what mods were important to your particular project (i.e., Webware would have mod_webkit, mod_rewrite, and mod_ssl -- mod_auth_db and mod_ssi don't seem important to Webware -- another project might not have mod_rewrite, or might have mod_auth_db, etc). You could cut the build tools and documentation, maybe even mod_fancy_index (that's a mod, isn't it?) and a bunch of other near-standard modules. At the same time, Webware is close enough to a built-in web server that that seems near as simple. Anyway, this should be clearly directed at *only* Windows. These issues are all much better dealt with by the packaging systems on Linux OSes. > For future proofing, use Apache 2.0 now, rather than 1.3 I suppose, but it should also be possible to use 1.3 since you aren't looking for a featureful server anyway, just a compact and reliable one. Anyway, this might not be at all difficult, or maybe it's already been done. The whole module system seems to be meant to facilitate this, and make Apache easy to trim down. Ian |
From: Tripp L. <tl...@pe...> - 2002-04-10 06:40:17
|
On 10 Apr 2002, Ian Bicking wrote: > I think it wouldn't even include these -- rather, you'd also include > what mods were important to your particular project (i.e., Webware would > have mod_webkit, mod_rewrite, and mod_ssl -- mod_auth_db and mod_ssi > don't seem important to Webware -- another project might not have > mod_rewrite, or might have mod_auth_db, etc). +1, though I might even drop mod_ssl and mod_rewrite on the floor :) Those can always be "added" by the user when they decide they need them, at which point they're theoretically more willing to invest some time in tweaking the config. > Anyway, this should be clearly directed at *only* Windows. These issues > are all much better dealt with by the packaging systems on Linux OSes. I disagree with this, and I can do so legitimately, as I'm a Linux user (Mandrake, specifically). In fact, my intention would be to build a "Webware trivial install" RPM. A savvy Linux user can choose to grab the RPM (or sources) that will best mesh with everything that's already installed by the system. On the other hand, someone who may or may not have already hacked their installed stuff beyond recognition will be able to grab the "trivial install" RPM and install it so they can get up and running quickly without screwing up their installed stuff. > > For future proofing, use Apache 2.0 now, rather than 1.3 > > I suppose, but it should also be possible to use 1.3 since you aren't > looking for a featureful server anyway, just a compact and reliable one. Sure. No reason not to apply the same techniques to both builds. That way, both 1.3 and 2.0 users can start with a trivial install kit and migrate Webware into their entire production (whichever Apache it may use) when they're ready. > Anyway, this might not be at all difficult, or maybe it's already been > done. The whole module system seems to be meant to facilitate this, and > make Apache easy to trim down. I'm going to hope that it's not at all difficult :) In fact, I may have time to build some strawman RPMs later this week. We'll see :) - t. |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2002-04-11 07:33:29
|
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 01:40, Tripp Lilley wrote: > > I think it wouldn't even include these -- rather, you'd also include > > what mods were important to your particular project (i.e., Webware would > > have mod_webkit, mod_rewrite, and mod_ssl -- mod_auth_db and mod_ssi > > don't seem important to Webware -- another project might not have > > mod_rewrite, or might have mod_auth_db, etc). > > +1, though I might even drop mod_ssl and mod_rewrite on the floor :) > Those can always be "added" by the user when they decide they need them, > at which point they're theoretically more willing to invest some time in > tweaking the config. mod_rewrite fills in a number of gaps in Webware, so until Webware does better URL handling natively I think it has to be included. mod_ssl is just kind of cool to include, though not necessary. Unlike SSI or somesuch, mod_ssl is orthogonal to webware (like mod_gzip). > > Anyway, this should be clearly directed at *only* Windows. These issues > > are all much better dealt with by the packaging systems on Linux OSes. > > I disagree with this, and I can do so legitimately, as I'm a Linux user > (Mandrake, specifically). In fact, my intention would be to build a > "Webware trivial install" RPM. A savvy Linux user can choose to grab the > RPM (or sources) that will best mesh with everything that's already > installed by the system. On the other hand, someone who may or may not > have already hacked their installed stuff beyond recognition will be able > to grab the "trivial install" RPM and install it so they can get up and > running quickly without screwing up their installed stuff. I use Debian, so maybe I have a different perspective -- I'm used to packages installing easily and interacting very well. So I would envision the Debian Webware package installing easily and working well with the standard Apache package. "apt-get install webware" is as trivial as you can get, after all :) I don't see any reason that couldn't install Webware in a very usable, if generic, manner. Ian |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@uc...> - 2002-04-10 15:42:56
|
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 21:37, Terrel Shumway wrote: > For future proofing, use Apache 2.0 now, rather than 1.3 > I guess I missed the party, but as of 5 April, 2.0.35 is the "recommended version" of apache -- 1.3 is now officially in maintenance mode. http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.html This adds weight to the need for a mod_webkit for 2.0 before webware goes 1.0. |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2002-04-09 02:26:58
|
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 21:01, Terrel Shumway wrote: > On Tue, 2002-04-02 at 06:55, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: > > Now that 0.7 is out, I think it's high time that we moved Webware in the > > direction of a 1.0 release. What things still need to be done? > > > > Not essential, but nice-to-have: > > (based on my personal experience of picking up a copy of webware after a > very long rest) > > * A wiz-bang GUI installer & launcher: > click, click, click, open browser I don't know this for a fact, but I imagine making a GUI Windows installer is similar to making the equivalent fancy Linux installer (which is an rpm/deb) -- and similarly, distutils is probably the key to doing it Right. |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@uc...> - 2002-04-09 06:14:26
|
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:25, Ian Bicking wrote: > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 21:01, Terrel Shumway wrote: > > * A wiz-bang GUI installer & launcher: > > click, click, click, open browser > > I don't know this for a fact, but I imagine making a GUI Windows > installer is similar to making the equivalent fancy Linux installer > (which is an rpm/deb) -- and similarly, distutils is probably the key to > doing it Right. Distutils does half of the job, and is OK for many purposes. My purpose is to make a *braindead* installer: * no python installation necessary * no admin rights necessary * no webserver necessary * easy to setup multiple sites * easy to clean up when you are done playing Phase 2 (probably after 1.0) would be a set of management tools for a real deployment: * compile and install mod_webkit * install mod_rewrite rules? * manage multiple webware "instances" * start,stop,pause, configure service * edit configuration * add/remove/edit contexts/plugins * load-balancing * user name/passwords * backup/restore * manage log files * manage error files * ... * integration with boa-constructor * all of those nifty little tricks that you learned the hard way by spending many sleepless night curled up by the fire with your Webware Source. There is room for a lot of tools of varying value that go far beyond what distutils is designed for. -- Terrel |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2002-04-09 06:42:44
|
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 01:11, Terrel Shumway wrote: > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:25, Ian Bicking wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 21:01, Terrel Shumway wrote: > > > * A wiz-bang GUI installer & launcher: > > > click, click, click, open browser > > > > I don't know this for a fact, but I imagine making a GUI Windows > > installer is similar to making the equivalent fancy Linux installer > > (which is an rpm/deb) -- and similarly, distutils is probably the key to > > doing it Right. > > Distutils does half of the job, and is OK for many purposes. My purpose > is to make a *braindead* installer: I'm thinking that the installers use distutils to describe the package, and set up the installer. I haven't used these installers, this is just what I imagine. I know py2exe uses distutils. Just like with rpm/deb, distutils doesn't make it happen -- but it does bring you a whole lot closer. > * no python installation necessary That's hard... you'd have to install Python, but maybe as part of Webware -- something like py2exe doesn't make sense, since you aren't setting up an application, you are setting up a programming environment. I think it would be hard to make this any simpler or more robust than simply telling people to install some version of Python for Windows (of course, outside of Windows none of this installer stuff makes sense). > * no admin rights necessary > * no webserver necessary Doable with an embedded web server... Webware Experimental has one, I think...? (Also distutils) > * easy to setup multiple sites To the degree that setting up contexts could be easier, sure... that could even be done from the Webware admin screens. Virtual sites are more complex, and probably not quite so straight-forward that they are worth putting in the dead-simple installation. Separate AppServers are of interest, easy if the AppServer is a program, hard if it's a service. > * easy to clean up when you are done playing > > > Phase 2 (probably after 1.0) would be a set of management tools for a > real deployment: > * compile and install mod_webkit For Windows it would be precompiled. Installation should only mean copying, I think. > * install mod_rewrite rules? This is doable -- a simple query of where in the path Webware should go, and then set up the simple <Location /<user input>...</Location> could be put in. > * manage multiple webware "instances" > * start,stop,pause, configure service > * edit configuration > * add/remove/edit contexts/plugins > * load-balancing > * user name/passwords > * backup/restore > * manage log files > * manage error files Most of these could be added to the admin screens, so it would benefit all. Well, user handling isn't standardized so that wouldn't work. > * integration with boa-constructor What's that? I suppose this stuff should go on the Wiki at some point... Ian |
From: Terrel S. <tsh...@uc...> - 2002-04-10 01:14:22
|
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 23:42, Ian Bicking wrote: > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 01:11, Terrel Shumway wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 19:25, Ian Bicking wrote: > Most of these could be added to the admin screens, so it would benefit > all. Well, user handling isn't standardized so that wouldn't work. > I hate browser-based admin screens 8-P (personal preference of course) > > * integration with boa-constructor > > What's that? A python IDE: http://boa-constructor.sourceforge.net/ > > I suppose this stuff should go on the Wiki at some point... > http://webware.colorstudy.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/BrainDeadInstaller |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2002-04-10 01:57:45
|
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 20:11, Terrel Shumway wrote: > > Most of these could be added to the admin screens, so it would benefit > > all. Well, user handling isn't standardized so that wouldn't work. > > > I hate browser-based admin screens 8-P (personal preference of course) Heresy! |
From: Tripp L. <tl...@pe...> - 2002-04-10 03:48:08
|
On 9 Apr 2002, Terrel Shumway wrote: > I hate browser-based admin screens 8-P (personal preference of course) Agreed. As long as I can turn them off, and as long as all of the admin stuff is accessible programmatically, though, I don't object to the -existence- of browser-based admin screens :) Just to being forced to them as the only option :) |
From: Clark C . E. <cc...@cl...> - 2002-04-10 02:44:32
|
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 09:55:08AM -0500, Geoffrey Talvola wrote: | Now that 0.7 is out, I think it's high time that we moved Webware in the | direction of a 1.0 release. What things still need to be done? Apache 2.0 adapter. ;) Clark |