Re: [WebDNA] Just drop the Server version
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2015
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 112099
interpreted = N
texte = I am not sure that sharing databases across several websites is good for = security, or even that it is a common practice for the php/mysql users. = It is used by some WebDNA developers because they find convenient to = share the same resources among their customers on the very same server, = meaning that they are in charge of their customers web hosting. Process isolation is a much better option, insuring that if a website = gets compromised, this would not affect the integrity of the other = websites, because there is no access to other=92s databases, loaded in = RAM or not, or other=92s files. It is much easier to "lock" a user in = its own space. The less resources WebDNA shares between websites, the = better the security. Also, there is a project to add WebDNA capabilities to work with several = servers: a front-end WebDNA server for data processing and a back-end = WebDNA server for databases. Give us some time :-) - chris > On 11 Feb 2015, at 06:01, Brian Burton
wrote: >=20 > Getting rid of the server version makes WebDNA a less attractive = language.=20 >=20 > Let me explain. WebDNA=92s databases system is very easy to use for = web programmers of simple to moderate web sites. It starts to fall off = the rails a little as web projects get bigger, but for those of us that = love the simplicity of WebDNA, we find ways to make it work (using the = globals folder to have path agnostic databases, sharding databases to = make them small and speedy, etc)=20 >=20 > My understanding of the FCGI is it starts a process and loads into = memory the databases it needs for 1 domain(website). Multiple instances = of the FCI to support multiple front ends for one set of databases (via = a shared universal globals folder (is that even possible with the FCGI?) = would cause all sorts of data inconsistency problems.=20 >=20 > Brian B. Burton >=20 >=20 >> On Feb 10, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Kenneth Grome = wrote: >>=20 >> Hi tom, >>=20 >> Fortunately you have a brand new Server version 8.0.2 that works >> for you now, and I suspect that this version will hold you for >> another 5-10 years, even if no new Server version were ever >> developed or released, correct? >>=20 >> Another issue here is that if WSC would make "^" work in the >> FastCGI version (the way it works in the Server version) you'd be >> able to run the FastCGI version for your CMS, correct? >>=20 >> When I suggested no more development on the Server version I was >> offering a supporting option for Chris' goal when he said: >>=20 >> "We want to keep things as simple as possible." >>=20 >> One way to dramatically simplify WSC's software development work >> (and save a ton of money) is to stop developing all versions >> except one. And since the FastCGI version runs on the most >> popular servers on the web these days, it would seem to "make >> sense" to continue to develop only the FastCGI version. >>=20 >> I think Chris has finally gotten WSC back on-track for success >> again. We are certainly seeing more development now than during >> the previous two or three years! I would hate to see all this new >> development 'disappear' because the company tries to stretch their >> resources too thin. >>=20 >> This is a hard decision, I know, but sometimes hard decisions must >> be made in order for a company to survive. And I for one would >> like to see the company not just survive but thrive! >>=20 >> Regards, >> Kenneth Grome >> WebDNA Solutions >> http://www.webdnasolutions.com >> Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
I am not sure that sharing databases across several websites is good for = security, or even that it is a common practice for the php/mysql users. = It is used by some WebDNA developers because they find convenient to = share the same resources among their customers on the very same server, = meaning that they are in charge of their customers web hosting. Process isolation is a much better option, insuring that if a website = gets compromised, this would not affect the integrity of the other = websites, because there is no access to other=92s databases, loaded in = RAM or not, or other=92s files. It is much easier to "lock" a user in = its own space. The less resources WebDNA shares between websites, the = better the security. Also, there is a project to add WebDNA capabilities to work with several = servers: a front-end WebDNA server for data processing and a back-end = WebDNA server for databases. Give us some time :-) - chris > On 11 Feb 2015, at 06:01, Brian Burton wrote: >=20 > Getting rid of the server version makes WebDNA a less attractive = language.=20 >=20 > Let me explain. WebDNA=92s databases system is very easy to use for = web programmers of simple to moderate web sites. It starts to fall off = the rails a little as web projects get bigger, but for those of us that = love the simplicity of WebDNA, we find ways to make it work (using the = globals folder to have path agnostic databases, sharding databases to = make them small and speedy, etc)=20 >=20 > My understanding of the FCGI is it starts a process and loads into = memory the databases it needs for 1 domain(website). Multiple instances = of the FCI to support multiple front ends for one set of databases (via = a shared universal globals folder (is that even possible with the FCGI?) = would cause all sorts of data inconsistency problems.=20 >=20 > Brian B. Burton >=20 >=20 >> On Feb 10, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Kenneth Grome = wrote: >>=20 >> Hi tom, >>=20 >> Fortunately you have a brand new Server version 8.0.2 that works >> for you now, and I suspect that this version will hold you for >> another 5-10 years, even if no new Server version were ever >> developed or released, correct? >>=20 >> Another issue here is that if WSC would make "^" work in the >> FastCGI version (the way it works in the Server version) you'd be >> able to run the FastCGI version for your CMS, correct? >>=20 >> When I suggested no more development on the Server version I was >> offering a supporting option for Chris' goal when he said: >>=20 >> "We want to keep things as simple as possible." >>=20 >> One way to dramatically simplify WSC's software development work >> (and save a ton of money) is to stop developing all versions >> except one. And since the FastCGI version runs on the most >> popular servers on the web these days, it would seem to "make >> sense" to continue to develop only the FastCGI version. >>=20 >> I think Chris has finally gotten WSC back on-track for success >> again. We are certainly seeing more development now than during >> the previous two or three years! I would hate to see all this new >> development 'disappear' because the company tries to stretch their >> resources too thin. >>=20 >> This is a hard decision, I know, but sometimes hard decisions must >> be made in order for a company to survive. And I for one would >> like to see the company not just survive but thrive! >>=20 >> Regards, >> Kenneth Grome >> WebDNA Solutions >> http://www.webdnasolutions.com >> Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
christophe.billiottet@webdna.us
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
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...
Related Readings:
nesting limits? (1998)
Interesting speed comparison .. (2003)
[referrer] tag (1997)
Nested tags count question (1997)
cc auth with [purchase] (1998)
WebMerchant 1.6 and SHTML (1997)
WebCatalog Features (1997)
[WebDNA] Authenticate tag (2015)
Encrypt question. (2000)
RE: setting cookies then redirecting? (1998)
Help Please WebDNA 6 Secure Forms Problem (2004)
Protect vs Authenicate (1997)
(no subject) (1997)
too many nested tags ... (1997)
[WebDNA] FCKeditor (2009)
WebCatalog can't find database (1997)
RE: Discounting prices across a site (1997)
carriage returns in data (1997)
Progress !! WAS: Trouble with formula.db (1997)
Missing contexts on NT (1997)