The way I see it, the FastCGI version is for the newcomer out there who has no prior relationship with any of us. = They want to learn and use WebDNA on one site, and at a low price, they can afford do that and learn at the same time wi= thout committing to their own server. The other customer is one or our clients who wants to keep their hosting elsewhere = and be in charge of their own hosting. I for one would be more than happy to steer clients this way in order to throw = new business to WSC.=A0
I too have a= lot invested in shared code via the Globals folder. But more and more, I've been moving toward self-contained folders= . When I develop a new site and make improvements to old shared code, it becomes a nuisance to check up on old= er sites to make sure these improvements work for them too. I don't mind moving away from a globals folder.
Terry
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:00:02 -0600
Kennet= h Grome <kengrome@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> My understanding is that you'll have to duplic= ate your
>shared db's and repositories by making a copy for each
>domain, assuming of course that you wan= t to go the
>FastCGI route rather than continuing with the regular
>version of WebDNA.
>
> I= think WSC will not be supporting the regular version
>after 6.2.1 comes out though, so for the long term future=
>you might miss out on specific features added to the
>FastCGI version but not the regular version= .
>
> I'm just theorizing about this of course, so I'm going
>to wait for Chris to confirm or deny= these assumptions,
>but if I'm not mistaken this is his general concept.
>
> Sincerely,
>= Kenneth Grome
> www.KenGrome.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Chris = -
>>
>> I am not particularly familiar with how the fastCGI
>>version will opera= te vs. the module version. Can you give
>>a quick rundown on this?
>>
>> In my parti= cular usage, I typically run multiple domains
>>on the same physical server, sharing extensive function
&= gt;>libraries and db repositories stored in globals. How will
>>this change using fastCGI?
>>
= >> Note that this is key to my future use of WebDNA, as I
>>am constantly defending the use of such a "no= n-standard"
>>technology as the core of our company's services. There
>>is considerable pressure to = move to a different platform,
>>despite the 8 years of development time that has gone
>= ;>into our current systems.
>>
>> Brian Fries
>> BrainScan Software
> ---------= ------------------------------------------------
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed
>to
>= the mailing list <talk@webdna.us>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <talk-leave= @webdna.us>
> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us
> old archives: http://de= v.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
> Bug Reporting:
>http://forum.webdna.us/eucabb.html?page=3Dtopics&c= ategory=3D288
=A0
The way I see it, the FastCGI version is for the newcomer out there who has no prior relationship with any of us. = They want to learn and use WebDNA on one site, and at a low price, they can afford do that and learn at the same time wi= thout committing to their own server. The other customer is one or our clients who wants to keep their hosting elsewhere = and be in charge of their own hosting. I for one would be more than happy to steer clients this way in order to throw = new business to WSC.=A0
I too have a= lot invested in shared code via the Globals folder. But more and more, I've been moving toward self-contained folders= . When I develop a new site and make improvements to old shared code, it becomes a nuisance to check up on old= er sites to make sure these improvements work for them too. I don't mind moving away from a globals folder.
Terry
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:00:02 -0600
Kennet= h Grome <kengrome@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> My understanding is that you'll have to duplic= ate your
>shared db's and repositories by making a copy for each
>domain, assuming of course that you wan= t to go the
>FastCGI route rather than continuing with the regular
>version of WebDNA.
>
> I= think WSC will not be supporting the regular version
>after 6.2.1 comes out though, so for the long term future=
>you might miss out on specific features added to the
>FastCGI version but not the regular version= .
>
> I'm just theorizing about this of course, so I'm going
>to wait for Chris to confirm or deny= these assumptions,
>but if I'm not mistaken this is his general concept.
>
> Sincerely,
>= Kenneth Grome
> www.KenGrome.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Chris = -
>>
>> I am not particularly familiar with how the fastCGI
>>version will opera= te vs. the module version. Can you give
>>a quick rundown on this?
>>
>> In my parti= cular usage, I typically run multiple domains
>>on the same physical server, sharing extensive function
&= gt;>libraries and db repositories stored in globals. How will
>>this change using fastCGI?
>>
= >> Note that this is key to my future use of WebDNA, as I
>>am constantly defending the use of such a "no= n-standard"
>>technology as the core of our company's services. There
>>is considerable pressure to = move to a different platform,
>>despite the 8 years of development time that has gone
>= ;>into our current systems.
>>
>> Brian Fries
>> BrainScan Software
> ---------= ------------------------------------------------
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed
>to
>= the mailing list <talk@webdna.us>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <talk-leave= @webdna.us>
> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us
> old archives: http://de= v.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
> Bug Reporting:
>http://forum.webdna.us/eucabb.html?page=3Dtopics&c= ategory=3D288
=A0
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...