Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA future
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2010
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 104420
interpreted = N
texte = Hmmmm .. we utilize Sitebuilder a lot, because its quick, easy, and we've become good at modifying it..... this would be a problem. As a suggestion, why not try running parallel for a time to allow for conversion over to fastCGI. Kind of like running legacy operating systems, for a period, to allow developers to rewrite apps for the new system. Rob On 2010-01-12, at 5:38 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: > christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote: >> You are a shareholder Donovan. Feel free to ask privately. WebDNA is not obsessed with secrecy, but some information are not for public release yet. >> - chris > > > Obviously, my intention was to try and spark some *constructive* 3rd party conversation on some of the ideas (new app type, website, and documentation etc..) that have been made public... as I think you would admit that you and I have come to beating the poor dead horse with many of our views. ;-) > > Since these ideas have indeed been made public, I think it's fair to ask > questions and/or talk about them a bit. Understand, I'm not trying to be a complainer, but rather, I am trying to help by first clarifying some of the details and perhaps > pointing out some concerns, and then perhaps sparking some new input about those ideas. Afterall, I see our original intention of this > product to be developer owned... so in that spirit.... > > First, the FastCGI is a great *option* IMO. I think everyone will agree, > once they think about it, that it allows for a perhaps simpler alternative in virtual hosting environments (one, because it can run as > the same user/group as the virtual environment, which sometimes is > different than the webserver's user/group enviro), and offers some isolation benefits (.."what happens in my home doesn't affect yours" > sort of thing). Also, chances are that more big name virtual hosting environments will allow it, though there will still be many that won't. In short, along with the benefits you pointed out, it opens up a wider and simpler market that now better includes WebSite owners who rent a virtual host and people who want to keep their virtual hosts as separate as possible. I personally applaud the effort in that direction (as I did when I was involved). > > However, there are reasons to keep the plug-in (module) version up-to-date..., which is still unclear by everyone except you and Jaz. And though I may actually have a clue on some of the answers that I'm asking, ;-) I thought it best to ask if you could reveal some of that > intention so that you can get, not just my feedback, but feedback > from the other experienced scriptors and admins here. > > Regarding some of the comments, here is some of the responses that > I have... > > With sandboxes, an admin has the ability to limit how a user can > interact with the rest of the server, particularly with DOS,SHELL,Applescript, file paths et al. Has this sort of thing been addressed with the fastCGI app that will most likely run in virtual host situation? I don't know of anyone that will want to install an > app in a shared host enviro that will have the ability to fish around > the entire server. Knowing Jaz though, I'm guessing he has already > thought of this and addressed this.?? It seems like the only solution > there is relative paths only, as not all domains will have different > user and groups. > > Contrary to what was said, there *are* many who still use commands.. mostly because there are many who run SiteBuilder stores (which use commands). Now, I personally think SiteBuilder is outdated and needs an upgrade, particularly replacing the commands with contexts... However, the fact remains that it is functional, people use it, people make money with it, and yes, if done right, it can be secure. I know people use > commands because I have worked on some of those sites. If commands are to be taken out of all the versions of WebDNA, those sites are dead in the water without reworks and the SiteBuilder product becomes a dead product without a rework. > (Fine with me if that is the case, but significant none the less to quite a few, and something people may want a heads up on) > > Also, I personally utilize a lot of the (extended) features of the module based app.. globals and sandboxes in particular.. so I personally don't want to see those go away in the module-based app. > > Those are some initial concerns... and again... yes, this may be a > bit of an uncomfortable "tactic".. but I'm just trying to help see > a successful WebDNA future. I look forward to trying out the fastCGI app.! > > Donovan > > > > > > -- > Donovan Brooke > Euca Design Center > [Practical-Ethical-Efficient] > www.euca.us > egg.bz > artglass-forum.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > Bug Reporting: http://forum.webdna.us/eucabb.html?page=topics&category=288
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Hmmmm .. we utilize Sitebuilder a lot, because its quick, easy, and we've become good at modifying it..... this would be a problem. As a suggestion, why not try running parallel for a time to allow for conversion over to fastCGI. Kind of like running legacy operating systems, for a period, to allow developers to rewrite apps for the new system. Rob On 2010-01-12, at 5:38 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: > christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote: >> You are a shareholder Donovan. Feel free to ask privately. WebDNA is not obsessed with secrecy, but some information are not for public release yet. >> - chris > > > Obviously, my intention was to try and spark some *constructive* 3rd party conversation on some of the ideas (new app type, website, and documentation etc..) that have been made public... as I think you would admit that you and I have come to beating the poor dead horse with many of our views. ;-) > > Since these ideas have indeed been made public, I think it's fair to ask > questions and/or talk about them a bit. Understand, I'm not trying to be a complainer, but rather, I am trying to help by first clarifying some of the details and perhaps > pointing out some concerns, and then perhaps sparking some new input about those ideas. Afterall, I see our original intention of this > product to be developer owned... so in that spirit.... > > First, the FastCGI is a great *option* IMO. I think everyone will agree, > once they think about it, that it allows for a perhaps simpler alternative in virtual hosting environments (one, because it can run as > the same user/group as the virtual environment, which sometimes is > different than the webserver's user/group enviro), and offers some isolation benefits (.."what happens in my home doesn't affect yours" > sort of thing). Also, chances are that more big name virtual hosting environments will allow it, though there will still be many that won't. In short, along with the benefits you pointed out, it opens up a wider and simpler market that now better includes WebSite owners who rent a virtual host and people who want to keep their virtual hosts as separate as possible. I personally applaud the effort in that direction (as I did when I was involved). > > However, there are reasons to keep the plug-in (module) version up-to-date..., which is still unclear by everyone except you and Jaz. And though I may actually have a clue on some of the answers that I'm asking, ;-) I thought it best to ask if you could reveal some of that > intention so that you can get, not just my feedback, but feedback > from the other experienced scriptors and admins here. > > Regarding some of the comments, here is some of the responses that > I have... > > With sandboxes, an admin has the ability to limit how a user can > interact with the rest of the server, particularly with DOS,SHELL,Applescript, file paths et al. Has this sort of thing been addressed with the fastCGI app that will most likely run in virtual host situation? I don't know of anyone that will want to install an > app in a shared host enviro that will have the ability to fish around > the entire server. Knowing Jaz though, I'm guessing he has already > thought of this and addressed this.?? It seems like the only solution > there is relative paths only, as not all domains will have different > user and groups. > > Contrary to what was said, there *are* many who still use commands.. mostly because there are many who run SiteBuilder stores (which use commands). Now, I personally think SiteBuilder is outdated and needs an upgrade, particularly replacing the commands with contexts... However, the fact remains that it is functional, people use it, people make money with it, and yes, if done right, it can be secure. I know people use > commands because I have worked on some of those sites. If commands are to be taken out of all the versions of WebDNA, those sites are dead in the water without reworks and the SiteBuilder product becomes a dead product without a rework. > (Fine with me if that is the case, but significant none the less to quite a few, and something people may want a heads up on) > > Also, I personally utilize a lot of the (extended) features of the module based app.. globals and sandboxes in particular.. so I personally don't want to see those go away in the module-based app. > > Those are some initial concerns... and again... yes, this may be a > bit of an uncomfortable "tactic".. but I'm just trying to help see > a successful WebDNA future. I look forward to trying out the fastCGI app.! > > Donovan > > > > > > -- > Donovan Brooke > Euca Design Center > [Practical-Ethical-Efficient] > www.euca.us > egg.bz > artglass-forum.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > Bug Reporting: http://forum.webdna.us/eucabb.html?page=topics&category=288
Rob
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:
PCS Frames (1997)
find with exceptions (1997)
Performance of this mailserver (2000)
Weekly Triggers??? (2000)
[WebDNA] Is anybody running a CAPTCHA? (2017)
Alias Problem (2002)
Needed, Freelance Web Developer (2007)
Re:Emailer and encryption (1997)
Emailer or [sendmail] questions ... (1998)
Database Repopulation (2004)
OT: Advice (2003)
multiple search of same field (1999)
passing cart value (2003)
Return records from another (1997)
Web Merchant process after credit card clears (1998)
Banners (1997)
Multiple Pulldowns (1997)
Order file numbers different than the cart number. why? (2000)
[WebDNA] Captcha question (and free code) (2009)
looking for some paid WebCatalog help (2000)