Type of server that would be used

>* Another ongoing question is how valuable people will think a "standalone"

>  server will be, versus a fast/featureful server. 
>  
>  IE, right now to get up and running, you unpack current, run stunnel,
>  and go. But its slow, since we're doing http in python. We're also 
>  using python shelves for all our data storage, which limits how useful
>  client data storage can be (shelves are simple key:value pairs really,
>  and you need more power to support the really advanced features).
>  
>  We could increase power by using apache to do the heavy bit shifting, 
>  and postgresql to be our main storage of data. But that means that 
>  a new site would have to get apache setup and running, get postgresql
>  setup and running, and then tackle current.
>  
>  Sure, having both would be great. I'll do that if I can figure out how,
>  but would anybody really use one or the other? 
>



I know that I would much prefer to have an SQL backend and a webserver.
Performance and reliability are much more important to me than simplicity of
initial installation, or valid pre-requisites.  I personally feel that if a
Systems Admin who is trying to set up an up2date server to support all his
systems, who cannot figure out how to install and configure Apache and some
sory of SQL Database really has no business being a Systems Admin.

Joe Blow home user is never going to want to run current unless they're just
intrigued by the posibility and are interested in learning.  If that is the
case, they are not going to mind installing a little extra software
either... and would probably enjoy the challenge.

That said, we would of course have very nice and simple to follow
documentation on how to install and configure all relevant services... so
somebody SHOULD be able to just walk through that anyways.... right?


Sam Bingner