Nenad Rakocevic - Softinnov 1-Mar-2009 21:37:56 GMT Article #19 Main page || Index || 9 Comments |
DocKimbel
1-Mar-2009 22:58:48 |
Binaries for OS X are currently missing. They will be uploaded tomorrow. |
Tundra
18-May-2009 4:40:44 |
Why would anyone use this over Apache? |
Graham
18-May-2009 7:31:36 |
Have you looked at both the memory and physical footprint of Apache vs Cheyenne? |
Tundra
18-May-2009 12:48:24 |
How much less memory does Cheyenne use? My major concern is performance. Is there a comparison on this site that I'm failing to find that shows how it performs compared to Apache? |
Hmm
18-May-2009 23:20:19 |
The difference is, that with Cheyenne you can create Client Side Servers easily. Not everybody wants to do install Apache on his own computer. With Cheyenne it can be just one exe. Of course I'm talking about special application use. |
Tundra
19-May-2009 15:45:25 |
Oh, so Cheyenne is just a personal webserver. I understand now. Thanks Hmm. |
Janko
19-May-2009 18:15:16 |
Tundra: Cheyenne is not just a personal webserver :) . It could be called REBOL application server before that. If you *need* performance for serving static files you should probably use a classic http server, but not even apache, maybe nginx. If you want to serve dynamic content (web-apps coded in rebol) it's IMHO an awesome option. |
Tundra
19-May-2009 23:27:19 |
Thanks Janko, I will look up nginx because I'm definately interested in performance. |
Janko
20-May-2009 15:42:26 |
my post was maybe a little confusing... If you *need* performance for serving static files you should probably use a classic http server, but not even apache, maybe nginx. <-- about nginx (static files) If you want to serve dynamic content (web-apps coded in rebol) it's IMHO an awesome option. <-- again about cheyenne (dynamic ) |
You can post a comment here. Please keep it on-topic.