I don’t even remember what I was searching for but I came across xojo server dot com . Has anybody used their hosting service? Just curious
Did not even know they existed.
Web Apps seem only CGI ie no standalone. Also Europe only.
Any system that runs CGI should be able to support standalone as well.
It is strange that the people behind it never tried to promote it here, though. As if they don’t have contact with the Xojo developers community.
A quick Google shows very little Internet footprint as well.
Either it is still in infancy, or they are the worst marketers.
I believe a concern with CGI might be that Web 2.0 has been announced to be standalone only.
That would be a dealbreaker for me.
Found a source, emphasis mine.
Found a source, emphasis mine.[/quote]
Oh I believed you. And can fully understand why it is being done. CGI was always a desperation move to get WE running on existing web servers. The reverse proxy is the technique we used with one of our clients.
theyve said this several times
Note that this seems to suggest that once the shift is made for cloud that OLD ides will also only support standalone
Wonder why Xojo decided to go with stand alone only in web 2.0 and eliminate CGI?
Because CGI is a total pain and often more trouble than its worth.
Its also slower. With cgi requests have more steps:
Browser > Apache > CGI > app > CGI > Apache > Browser
Browser > Apache > app > Apache > Browser
Call me backward, or perhaps I did too much Perl, but I feel cgi integrates more naturally within a web site.
It takes place within the directory structure, and does not require using a special port. And launches automatically.
For the moment, all my Xojo Web programs are cgi. Which means I will probably keep present Xojo versions around to maintain those programs.
Now, I’ll need to adapt to Web 2.00 of course, and figure a way to have the app started automatically, which does not seem quite straightforward with ServerWarp, where I don’t seem to have access to cron.
I will also have to learn how to use several standalone programs on the same site.
From what I understand, I can only have one :8080 on a given site, so I would need to do :8081 and on, right ?
Typically you would use a reverse proxy or load balancer in front of the app so you can use port 80 or 443 as needed.
So you need a load balancer or reverse proxy for each app ?
Usually you would set up a domain name per app and have the balancer or proxy route the requests for you.
How many of each would depend on your needs.
Typically the app runs all the time waiting for connections and only restarts when you need to replace the app.
There is more setup involved with a reverse proxy, but yes you can achieve the same effect as a cgi. You can point all traffic from inside a directory to your web app’s socket. The additional setup comes from making sure your web app is always running, such as adding a cron job. Unless I’m mistaken - it’s been a while - your WE app runs a mutex, so all you need to do is have cron execute the app every minute. When your app goes down, cron will bring it back up. There’s other ways to solve this problem though, such as creating a system service, which gives you the ability to intentionally stop the app so you can update it.
CGI definitely makes your app easier to maintain… when it works. But it has a whole host of problems too. That’s why I’m not surprised at the move. I said losing it would be a dealbreaker, but in retrospect, that’s really not true. The reverse proxy is more work to setup, but more reliable too.
Every single deployment of a web app I’ve made has been standalone, mostly reverse proxied by IIS, but also some through a specified port. I’ve found it to be a robust solution. @Thom McGrath did an awesome job getting Web 1.0 working all those years ago.
“Talked” to xojoserverdotcom today via support chat. They said it will probably take another month (maybe end of May) to set up their services… although they already have server’s on their website…