[Grok-dev] Re: Admin UI name change suggestion
Philipp von Weitershausen
philipp at weitershausen.de
Fri Oct 5 05:42:37 EDT 2007
Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>> I agree with these observations, *however*, there needs to be a way to
>>> make "taking over the zope root" optionally in a very easy way: I
>>> forsee people do want to have multiple applications running in a Zope
>>> instance - I know I will need this option.
>>> Maybe we can introduce a grok.ApplicationRoot that will "take over"
>>> the zope root, where grok.Application retains the current behaviour?
>> I still like Shane's plan as he spelled it out, earlier.
>> What do people think about this?
> Actually we found several problems with the plan in that thread, and I
> replaced the idea with the following:
> "Wait... here's something simpler. There could be a page in the Grok UI
> that lets people configure which application to use by incoming port
> number. For example, I might say that port 8080 serves helloapp, 8081
> serves helloapp-dev, and 8082 serves grokadmin. If the server gets a
> request on an unconfigured port, it falls back to grokadmin. Adding a
> port requires a change to zope.conf, but that's easy to explain. Hmm,
> yeah, I like that idea a lot better. No funny ++app++ names, and if
> users accidentally lock themselves out of the grok administration UI,
> all they have to do is add another HTTP port to zope.conf."
> I'm still pretty happy with the revised idea.
If you're going to use separate ports, why not actually deploy them in
separate instances/sandboxes anyway? Separate processes will likely
perform better on multicore machines, anyweay. And there are other
advantages regarding flexibility (which is the whole point of the
multiple-app-per-instance discussion, isn't it?).
Perhaps I'm missing a point, though.
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
More information about the Grok-dev