forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: New ASF site was Re: New Apache XML Site! :-)
Date Sun, 27 Oct 2002 10:45:08 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > With Forrest we have created for this purpose a "bot" that simply
> > checks out a series of sites from CVS, runs the build, and uploads
> > them to the website.
> I would be against such a bot in use for ASF sites.
> There are times when we want to check in a change and do not 
> necessarily want to propogate the change immediately (say a pending 
> security release).  There are also times when we want an immediate 
> deployment - waiting for a bot could be painful (activating the bot 
> by trigger could be useful but introduces the first problem).

There are various ways to initiate the forrestbot.
It could also be configured to build to a staging area
for QA. If it does not yet suit users needs, then we will
add functionality. As with all projects, we need users.
Above all we need feedback and requirements, so keep on.

> I'm also concerned about security risks of a remote cron job that 
> copies the files to production.  Remember that we can't do the 
> generation on the production site.

So we would build projects on the remote machine
with Forrest, and use rsync to publish (over ssh
if needed) or scp. Does that suit?

> So, I would strongly prefer that we maintain manual deployment.
> > The real goal is to use Forrest *live*, thus serving the *best*
> > content to each browser, by doing separate transformation based on
> > the request, a thing that a single graphics cannot give.

Ken, the "real" goal of Forrest is to meet diverse
needs. Live run is one of those, but not the main.
Forrestbot and local build are equally important.

I am sure that you know this, as you have been with
us since the early days. I think that you are getting
exited and over-zealous in your promotion of Forrest.
I do understand - it is brilliant. Please settle down.

> As I bet you are aware, there will be major performance 
> considerations if you go down this route.  I would be reluctant to 
> move away from static pages in any ASF environment.  In the past, I 
> have worked with sites that used Java/XML/XSLTs to dynamically 
> generate the pages and was bitten by their lack of scalibility.  The 
> approach the ASF has tried to promote on its webpages is static 
> translations rather than dynamic translations.  I believe it fits 
> well in our deployment model.

That is why Forrest has diverse capabilities to
suit various needs.

> Please remember that the ASF sites handle approximately 2-3 million 
> hits a day (may well be much more by now).  Dynamic pages may make 
> sense for small sites, but I'd have to be sold on doing this for such 
> a large site that has severe resource constraints.  We have no money 
> to buy a Fire V480 - we're lucky we have daedalus/icarus.  -- justin

These frustrations have actually fuelled Forrest's 
development. We have had to find ways to work with such
real-life situations. IMO, static pages are the way to
go, perhaps using some well-designed dynamic bits where

View raw message