You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> on 2008/06/20 00:17:29 UTC
Php vs. Java vs... ??
Hi all,
as far as I'm reading,
it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready perspective.
am I wrong?
is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
what about other implementations?
a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
Thanks to all
leonardo
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tens of millions?
> ;)
Again, this all depends on what you're doing and your personal
infrastructure choices. Yahoo and facebook certainly get by just fine with
traffic several orders of magnitude higher than that on CGI-based (PHP)
frontends. PHP scales just fine, it just scales differently by encouraging a
pound smart, penny foolish programming model that emphasises horizontal
scalability over absolute efficiency (this is true for all CGI based
systems, so the same can be said of most perl, python, or ruby deployments
as well).
Both approaches are valid ways to achieve the goal.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
> > > sites
> >
> >
> > You don't need java for very large sites. PHP scales extremely well
> > horizontally (add more machines). The real bottleneck with PHP is the
> > number
> > of simultaneous requests you can do. You can get much better performance
> > using lighthttpd instead of apache httpd, but you trade performance for
> > flexibility.
> >
> > Of course, this depends on what "large scale" means to you. If you can
> > overhwhelm your available bandwidth on a single machine anyway, it
> doesn't
> > matter what you use.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ;) ;)
> > >
> > > ropu
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > thanks for the replies.
> > > > for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
> > > > so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> > > > regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
> > > > sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
> > > > fun to code..)
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > leo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >> as far as I'm reading,
> > > > >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> > > > perspective.
> > > > >> am I wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> > > > current
> > > > > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
> > CGI-like)
> > > > > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
> > Java,
> > > > go
> > > > > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> > > > characteristics
> > > > > of each, but those are language differences more than anything
> else.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it
> because
> > > it
> > > > > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
> > caja
> > > > by
> > > > > using a web service of some sort.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server"
> vs.
> > > > "cgi"
> > > > > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous
> requests
> > > than
> > > > > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
> > also
> > > > has a
> > > > > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying
> the
> > > PHP
> > > > > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but
> you
> > > > have
> > > > > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
> > > variety
> > > > of
> > > > > servlet containers out there.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> what about other implementations?
> > > > >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks to all
> > > > >> leonardo
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > .-. --- .--. ..-
> > > R o p u
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> .-. --- .--. ..-
> R o p u
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>.
ten of milions of what? :)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tens of millions?
> ;)
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
>> > sites
>>
>>
>> You don't need java for very large sites. PHP scales extremely well
>> horizontally (add more machines). The real bottleneck with PHP is the
>> number
>> of simultaneous requests you can do. You can get much better performance
>> using lighthttpd instead of apache httpd, but you trade performance for
>> flexibility.
>>
>> Of course, this depends on what "large scale" means to you. If you can
>> overhwhelm your available bandwidth on a single machine anyway, it doesn't
>> matter what you use.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > ;) ;)
>> >
>> > ropu
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > thanks for the replies.
>> > > for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
>> > > so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
>> > > regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
>> > > sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
>> > > fun to code..)
>> > >
>> > > thanks
>> > > leo
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi all,
>> > > >> as far as I'm reading,
>> > > >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>> > > perspective.
>> > > >> am I wrong?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
>> > > current
>> > > > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
>> CGI-like)
>> > > > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
>> Java,
>> > > go
>> > > > with the Java version. There are some different performance
>> > > characteristics
>> > > > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because
>> > it
>> > > > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
>> of
>> > a
>> > > > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
>> caja
>> > > by
>> > > > using a web service of some sort.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
>> > > "cgi"
>> > > > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests
>> > than
>> > > > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
>> also
>> > > has a
>> > > > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the
>> > PHP
>> > > > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
>> > > have
>> > > > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
>> > variety
>> > > of
>> > > > servlet containers out there.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> what about other implementations?
>> > > >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks to all
>> > > >> leonardo
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > .-. --- .--. ..-
>> > R o p u
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> .-. --- .--. ..-
> R o p u
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Ropu <ro...@gmail.com>.
tens of millions?
;)
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
> > sites
>
>
> You don't need java for very large sites. PHP scales extremely well
> horizontally (add more machines). The real bottleneck with PHP is the
> number
> of simultaneous requests you can do. You can get much better performance
> using lighthttpd instead of apache httpd, but you trade performance for
> flexibility.
>
> Of course, this depends on what "large scale" means to you. If you can
> overhwhelm your available bandwidth on a single machine anyway, it doesn't
> matter what you use.
>
>
> >
> > ;) ;)
> >
> > ropu
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > thanks for the replies.
> > > for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
> > > so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> > > regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
> > > sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
> > > fun to code..)
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > leo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >> as far as I'm reading,
> > > >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> > > perspective.
> > > >> am I wrong?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> > > current
> > > > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
> CGI-like)
> > > > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
> Java,
> > > go
> > > > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> > > characteristics
> > > > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because
> > it
> > > > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
> of
> > a
> > > > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
> caja
> > > by
> > > > using a web service of some sort.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
> > > "cgi"
> > > > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests
> > than
> > > > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
> also
> > > has a
> > > > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the
> > PHP
> > > > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
> > > have
> > > > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
> > variety
> > > of
> > > > servlet containers out there.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> what about other implementations?
> > > >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks to all
> > > >> leonardo
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > .-. --- .--. ..-
> > R o p u
> >
>
--
.-. --- .--. ..-
R o p u
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
> sites
You don't need java for very large sites. PHP scales extremely well
horizontally (add more machines). The real bottleneck with PHP is the number
of simultaneous requests you can do. You can get much better performance
using lighthttpd instead of apache httpd, but you trade performance for
flexibility.
Of course, this depends on what "large scale" means to you. If you can
overhwhelm your available bandwidth on a single machine anyway, it doesn't
matter what you use.
>
> ;) ;)
>
> ropu
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > thanks for the replies.
> > for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
> > so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> > regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
> > sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
> > fun to code..)
> >
> > thanks
> > leo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >> as far as I'm reading,
> > >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> > perspective.
> > >> am I wrong?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> > current
> > > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
> > > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java,
> > go
> > > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> > characteristics
> > > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
> > >
> > >
> > >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> > >
> > >
> > > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because
> it
> > > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of
> a
> > > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja
> > by
> > > using a web service of some sort.
> > >
> > >
> > >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
> > "cgi"
> > > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests
> than
> > > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also
> > has a
> > > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the
> PHP
> > > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
> > have
> > > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
> variety
> > of
> > > servlet containers out there.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> what about other implementations?
> > >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks to all
> > >> leonardo
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> .-. --- .--. ..-
> R o p u
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>.
I agree :)
but before to start vimming with test.c (all my best projects are
named "test.c" ;) ) I must learn the OpenSocial Container specs.
For example, it would be nice to try to code a C GadgetServer version,
and then bind it to an apache module.
but there are many things I still don't know.. as I said.. I'm a newbie here :)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> As with all good code, you start by writing it :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I write often apache modules for my company.
>> I too prefer to code in pure C and then bind through native extensions
>> / apache modules.
>> I'm not too much skilled but I get nice results sometimes.
>> If I could help.. it would be great :)
>> where can I start from?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>> > I was a big proponent of doing a pure C implementation originally -- it
>> > would be trivial to convert it to a php extension, apache module, python
>> > library, etc.
>> >
>> > I actually wrote some code to start the task way back around the time 0.5
>> > was coming out (probably before you even proposed shindig :)).
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Brian McCallister <br...@skife.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but
>> >> would
>> >> be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory
>> >> management!
>> >>
>> >> -Brian
>> >>
>> >> 1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd
>> >> languages, not forget altogether.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <ag...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > It's very interesting.
>> >> > Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module
>> >> > mod_opensocial.so.
>> >> > Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :)
>> >> >
>> >> > 2008/6/20 Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > sooo great!
>> >> > > but I have to insist...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
>> >> > >
>> >> > > try to be faster ;)
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > good night to all!
>> >> > > (at least, here is time to sleep!)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > leo
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for
>> *very-large-scale*
>> >> > sites
>> >> > >> ;) ;)
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> ropu
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>> thanks for the replies.
>> >> > >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so
>> big
>> >> > >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
>> >> > >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question,
>> some
>> >> > >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would
>> be
>> >> > >>> fun to code..)
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> thanks
>> >> > >>> leo
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <
>> startrack79@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >> Hi all,
>> >> > >>> >> as far as I'm reading,
>> >> > >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>> >> > >>> perspective.
>> >> > >>> >> am I wrong?
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what
>> your
>> >> > >>> current
>> >> > >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
>> >> > CGI-like)
>> >> > >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're
>> using
>> >> > Java,
>> >> > >>> go
>> >> > >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
>> >> > >>> characteristics
>> >> > >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything
>> >> else.
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it
>> >> because
>> >> > it
>> >> > >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an
>> advantage
>> >> > of a
>> >> > >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always
>> leverage
>> >> > caja
>> >> > >>> by
>> >> > >>> > using a web service of some sort.
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server"
>> >> vs.
>> >> > >>> "cgi"
>> >> > >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous
>> >> requests
>> >> > than
>> >> > >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but
>> it
>> >> > also
>> >> > >>> has a
>> >> > >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying
>> >> the
>> >> > PHP
>> >> > >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation,
>> but
>> >> you
>> >> > >>> have
>> >> > >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the
>> wide
>> >> > variety
>> >> > >>> of
>> >> > >>> > servlet containers out there.
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>> >>
>> >> > >>> >> what about other implementations?
>> >> > >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>> >> > >>> >>
>> >> > >>> >> Thanks to all
>> >> > >>> >> leonardo
>> >> > >>> >>
>> >> > >>> >
>> >> > >>>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> --
>> >> > >> .-. --- .--. ..-
>> >> > >> R o p u
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>.
As with all good code, you start by writing it :)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I write often apache modules for my company.
> I too prefer to code in pure C and then bind through native extensions
> / apache modules.
> I'm not too much skilled but I get nice results sometimes.
> If I could help.. it would be great :)
> where can I start from?
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> > I was a big proponent of doing a pure C implementation originally -- it
> > would be trivial to convert it to a php extension, apache module, python
> > library, etc.
> >
> > I actually wrote some code to start the task way back around the time 0.5
> > was coming out (probably before you even proposed shindig :)).
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Brian McCallister <br...@skife.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but
> >> would
> >> be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory
> >> management!
> >>
> >> -Brian
> >>
> >> 1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd
> >> languages, not forget altogether.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <ag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's very interesting.
> >> > Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module
> >> > mod_opensocial.so.
> >> > Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :)
> >> >
> >> > 2008/6/20 Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>:
> >> > > sooo great!
> >> > > but I have to insist...
> >> > >
> >> > > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
> >> > >
> >> > > try to be faster ;)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > good night to all!
> >> > > (at least, here is time to sleep!)
> >> > >
> >> > > leo
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for
> *very-large-scale*
> >> > sites
> >> > >> ;) ;)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ropu
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> thanks for the replies.
> >> > >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so
> big
> >> > >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> >> > >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question,
> some
> >> > >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would
> be
> >> > >>> fun to code..)
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> thanks
> >> > >>> leo
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <
> startrack79@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >> Hi all,
> >> > >>> >> as far as I'm reading,
> >> > >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> >> > >>> perspective.
> >> > >>> >> am I wrong?
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what
> your
> >> > >>> current
> >> > >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
> >> > CGI-like)
> >> > >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're
> using
> >> > Java,
> >> > >>> go
> >> > >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> >> > >>> characteristics
> >> > >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything
> >> else.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it
> >> because
> >> > it
> >> > >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an
> advantage
> >> > of a
> >> > >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always
> leverage
> >> > caja
> >> > >>> by
> >> > >>> > using a web service of some sort.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server"
> >> vs.
> >> > >>> "cgi"
> >> > >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous
> >> requests
> >> > than
> >> > >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but
> it
> >> > also
> >> > >>> has a
> >> > >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying
> >> the
> >> > PHP
> >> > >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation,
> but
> >> you
> >> > >>> have
> >> > >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the
> wide
> >> > variety
> >> > >>> of
> >> > >>> > servlet containers out there.
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> what about other implementations?
> >> > >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >> Thanks to all
> >> > >>> >> leonardo
> >> > >>> >>
> >> > >>> >
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> .-. --- .--. ..-
> >> > >> R o p u
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>.
I write often apache modules for my company.
I too prefer to code in pure C and then bind through native extensions
/ apache modules.
I'm not too much skilled but I get nice results sometimes.
If I could help.. it would be great :)
where can I start from?
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> I was a big proponent of doing a pure C implementation originally -- it
> would be trivial to convert it to a php extension, apache module, python
> library, etc.
>
> I actually wrote some code to start the task way back around the time 0.5
> was coming out (probably before you even proposed shindig :)).
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Brian McCallister <br...@skife.org>
> wrote:
>
>> mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but
>> would
>> be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory
>> management!
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>> 1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd
>> languages, not forget altogether.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <ag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> > It's very interesting.
>> > Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module
>> > mod_opensocial.so.
>> > Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :)
>> >
>> > 2008/6/20 Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>:
>> > > sooo great!
>> > > but I have to insist...
>> > >
>> > > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
>> > >
>> > > try to be faster ;)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > good night to all!
>> > > (at least, here is time to sleep!)
>> > >
>> > > leo
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
>> > sites
>> > >> ;) ;)
>> > >>
>> > >> ropu
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> thanks for the replies.
>> > >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
>> > >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
>> > >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
>> > >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
>> > >>> fun to code..)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> thanks
>> > >>> leo
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >> Hi all,
>> > >>> >> as far as I'm reading,
>> > >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>> > >>> perspective.
>> > >>> >> am I wrong?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
>> > >>> current
>> > >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
>> > CGI-like)
>> > >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
>> > Java,
>> > >>> go
>> > >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
>> > >>> characteristics
>> > >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything
>> else.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it
>> because
>> > it
>> > >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
>> > of a
>> > >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
>> > caja
>> > >>> by
>> > >>> > using a web service of some sort.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server"
>> vs.
>> > >>> "cgi"
>> > >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous
>> requests
>> > than
>> > >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
>> > also
>> > >>> has a
>> > >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying
>> the
>> > PHP
>> > >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but
>> you
>> > >>> have
>> > >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
>> > variety
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> > servlet containers out there.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> what about other implementations?
>> > >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> Thanks to all
>> > >>> >> leonardo
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> .-. --- .--. ..-
>> > >> R o p u
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>.
I was a big proponent of doing a pure C implementation originally -- it
would be trivial to convert it to a php extension, apache module, python
library, etc.
I actually wrote some code to start the task way back around the time 0.5
was coming out (probably before you even proposed shindig :)).
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Brian McCallister <br...@skife.org>
wrote:
> mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but
> would
> be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory
> management!
>
> -Brian
>
> 1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd
> languages, not forget altogether.
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <ag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > It's very interesting.
> > Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module
> > mod_opensocial.so.
> > Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :)
> >
> > 2008/6/20 Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>:
> > > sooo great!
> > > but I have to insist...
> > >
> > > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
> > >
> > > try to be faster ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
> > >
> > >
> > > good night to all!
> > > (at least, here is time to sleep!)
> > >
> > > leo
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
> > sites
> > >> ;) ;)
> > >>
> > >> ropu
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> thanks for the replies.
> > >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
> > >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> > >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
> > >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
> > >>> fun to code..)
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks
> > >>> leo
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>
> wrote:
> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> Hi all,
> > >>> >> as far as I'm reading,
> > >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> > >>> perspective.
> > >>> >> am I wrong?
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> > >>> current
> > >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
> > CGI-like)
> > >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
> > Java,
> > >>> go
> > >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> > >>> characteristics
> > >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything
> else.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it
> because
> > it
> > >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
> > of a
> > >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
> > caja
> > >>> by
> > >>> > using a web service of some sort.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server"
> vs.
> > >>> "cgi"
> > >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous
> requests
> > than
> > >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
> > also
> > >>> has a
> > >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying
> the
> > PHP
> > >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but
> you
> > >>> have
> > >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
> > variety
> > >>> of
> > >>> > servlet containers out there.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> what about other implementations?
> > >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Thanks to all
> > >>> >> leonardo
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> .-. --- .--. ..-
> > >> R o p u
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Brian McCallister <br...@skife.org>.
mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but would
be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory
management!
-Brian
1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd
languages, not forget altogether.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <ag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> It's very interesting.
> Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module
> mod_opensocial.so.
> Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :)
>
> 2008/6/20 Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>:
> > sooo great!
> > but I have to insist...
> >
> > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
> >
> > try to be faster ;)
> >
> >
> > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
> >
> >
> > good night to all!
> > (at least, here is time to sleep!)
> >
> > leo
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale*
> sites
> >> ;) ;)
> >>
> >> ropu
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> thanks for the replies.
> >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
> >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
> >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
> >>> fun to code..)
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>> leo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Hi all,
> >>> >> as far as I'm reading,
> >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> >>> perspective.
> >>> >> am I wrong?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> >>> current
> >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything
> CGI-like)
> >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
> Java,
> >>> go
> >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> >>> characteristics
> >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because
> it
> >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
> of a
> >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
> caja
> >>> by
> >>> > using a web service of some sort.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
> >>> "cgi"
> >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests
> than
> >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
> also
> >>> has a
> >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the
> PHP
> >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
> >>> have
> >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
> variety
> >>> of
> >>> > servlet containers out there.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> what about other implementations?
> >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks to all
> >>> >> leonardo
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> .-. --- .--. ..-
> >> R o p u
> >>
> >
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Eiji Kitamura <ag...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
It's very interesting.
Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module mod_opensocial.so.
Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :)
2008/6/20 Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>:
> sooo great!
> but I have to insist...
>
> LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
>
> try to be faster ;)
>
>
> (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
>
>
> good night to all!
> (at least, here is time to sleep!)
>
> leo
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale* sites
>> ;) ;)
>>
>> ropu
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> thanks for the replies.
>>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
>>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
>>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
>>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
>>> fun to code..)
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> leo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi all,
>>> >> as far as I'm reading,
>>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>>> perspective.
>>> >> am I wrong?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
>>> current
>>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
>>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java,
>>> go
>>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
>>> characteristics
>>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because it
>>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of a
>>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja
>>> by
>>> > using a web service of some sort.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
>>> "cgi"
>>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests than
>>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also
>>> has a
>>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the PHP
>>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
>>> have
>>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide variety
>>> of
>>> > servlet containers out there.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> what about other implementations?
>>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks to all
>>> >> leonardo
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> .-. --- .--. ..-
>> R o p u
>>
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>.
sooo great!
but I have to insist...
LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so
try to be faster ;)
(yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....)
good night to all!
(at least, here is time to sleep!)
leo
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale* sites
> ;) ;)
>
> ropu
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thanks for the replies.
>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
>> fun to code..)
>>
>> thanks
>> leo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >> as far as I'm reading,
>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>> perspective.
>> >> am I wrong?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
>> current
>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java,
>> go
>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
>> characteristics
>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
>> >
>> >
>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>> >
>> >
>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because it
>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of a
>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja
>> by
>> > using a web service of some sort.
>> >
>> >
>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
>> "cgi"
>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests than
>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also
>> has a
>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the PHP
>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
>> have
>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide variety
>> of
>> > servlet containers out there.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> what about other implementations?
>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to all
>> >> leonardo
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> .-. --- .--. ..-
> R o p u
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Ropu <ro...@gmail.com>.
give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale* sites
;) ;)
ropu
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> thanks for the replies.
> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
> fun to code..)
>
> thanks
> leo
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >> as far as I'm reading,
> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> perspective.
> >> am I wrong?
> >
> >
> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> current
> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java,
> go
> > with the Java version. There are some different performance
> characteristics
> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
> >
> >
> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> >
> >
> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because it
> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of a
> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja
> by
> > using a web service of some sort.
> >
> >
> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> >
> >
> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
> "cgi"
> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests than
> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also
> has a
> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the PHP
> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you
> have
> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide variety
> of
> > servlet containers out there.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> what about other implementations?
> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
> >>
> >> Thanks to all
> >> leonardo
> >>
> >
>
--
.-. --- .--. ..-
R o p u
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>.
thanks for the replies.
for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big
so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :)
regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some
sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be
fun to code..)
thanks
leo
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> as far as I'm reading,
>> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready perspective.
>> am I wrong?
>
>
> Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your current
> architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
> based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java, go
> with the Java version. There are some different performance characteristics
> of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
>
>
>> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>
>
> Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because it
> isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of a
> java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja by
> using a web service of some sort.
>
>
>> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>
>
> Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs. "cgi"
> setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests than
> the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also has a
> much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the PHP
> setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you have
> more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide variety of
> servlet containers out there.
>
>
>>
>> what about other implementations?
>> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>>
>> Thanks to all
>> leonardo
>>
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>.
this seems a really funny (and "heavy") group!
as soon as I'll learn something and will have something to reply I'll
do my better to be "at your level" ;)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Contrary to what some of you might be thinking ... Kevin and i are not
> competing who can reply the quickest, lengthiest and to the most emails! :-)
>
> (had a giggle moment when i saw a couple of emails we both responded to at
> an almost identical time)
>
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> as far as I'm reading,
>>> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>>> perspective.
>>> am I wrong?
>>
>>
>> Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
>> current
>> architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
>> based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java, go
>> with the Java version. There are some different performance
>> characteristics
>> of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
>>
>>
>>> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>>
>>
>> Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because it
>> isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of a
>> java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja by
>> using a web service of some sort.
>>
>>
>>> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>>
>>
>> Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs. "cgi"
>> setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests than
>> the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also has
>> a
>> much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the PHP
>> setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you have
>> more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide variety
>> of
>> servlet containers out there.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> what about other implementations?
>>> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>>>
>>> Thanks to all
>>> leonardo
>>>
>
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl>.
Contrary to what some of you might be thinking ... Kevin and i are not
competing who can reply the quickest, lengthiest and to the most
emails! :-)
(had a giggle moment when i saw a couple of emails we both responded
to at an almost identical time)
On Jun 20, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> as far as I'm reading,
>> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
>> perspective.
>> am I wrong?
>
>
> Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your
> current
> architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-
> like)
> based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using
> Java, go
> with the Java version. There are some different performance
> characteristics
> of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
>
>
>> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
>
>
> Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it
> because it
> isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage
> of a
> java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage
> caja by
> using a web service of some sort.
>
>
>> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
>
>
> Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs.
> "cgi"
> setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests
> than
> the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it
> also has a
> much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the
> PHP
> setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but
> you have
> more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide
> variety of
> servlet containers out there.
>
>
>>
>> what about other implementations?
>> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>>
>> Thanks to all
>> leonardo
>>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Kevin Brown <et...@google.com>.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> as far as I'm reading,
> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready perspective.
> am I wrong?
Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your current
architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything CGI-like)
based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using Java, go
with the Java version. There are some different performance characteristics
of each, but those are language differences more than anything else.
> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it because it
isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage of a
java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage caja by
using a web service of some sort.
> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" vs. "cgi"
setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous requests than
the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it also has a
much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying the PHP
setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but you have
more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide variety of
servlet containers out there.
>
> what about other implementations?
> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>
> Thanks to all
> leonardo
>
Re: Php vs. Java vs... ??
Posted by Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl>.
Actually Caja isn't used in production or production ready (yet) so
that's not a difference between the two versions.
The java version is already used in production by a number of very
large sites (igoogle sandbox, orkut, hi5, etc), so is road tested and
'proven technology', in that regard it's a very safe bet to use that.
The PHP version is currently already live on 3 production sites that
are a bit smaller but working great; And will be going live on a very
large site 'any day now', and dozens of others (ranging from medium to
large sized) later this summer, so it's not very far behind.
From the language perspective i refuse to comment, everyone has their
own preferences and almost every language can be fast, stable and
scale well, so let's not ever tread in that territory ok :)
Short of it, their both fine choices, pick the one that suits you
best :)
-- Chris
On Jun 20, 2008, at 12:17 AM, Leonardo wrote:
> Hi all,
> as far as I'm reading,
> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready
> perspective.
> am I wrong?
> is it only due to the Caja availabilty?
> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?)
> what about other implementations?
> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great.
>
> Thanks to all
> leonardo