[Info-vax] Using VMS for a web server

[Dirk Munk]

JF Mezei wrote:
> If VSI continues to support "Apache" on VMS, then it should be *Apache*
> , not some proprietary port.  A proprietary port means that when patches
> or new features become available to the world, they are not availble to
> VMS customers.
>

You will always have to adapt Apache in order to get it running on VMS. 
Apache is a Unix application, and VMS is not Unix. So it will always be 
a proprietary port, and any patch will also have to be ported to VMS I'm 
afraid. Apache will have VMS specific extensions, but I don't think it 
was ever the intention to make it more proprietary than necessary.


>
> Also, "<company> Secure Web Server" has 0 marketing value. If VSI can
> claim that Apache runs on VMS, then this has marketing value.
>
Yes, you could be right there.

> Also having WASD for higher performance wich takes advantage of VMS
> would be good for those who prefer a less common web server that fits
> better in VMS.

My reasoning to think of WASD as the primary web server is this:
Some one who is used to Apache on Unix will most likely not be used to 
using VMS. Someone who is used to VMS will perhaps not be used to the 
Unix style of doing things as with Apache. So if WASD is doing things in 
the VMS way, then VMS people will be able to setup a WASD server faster 
then with Apache.

>
> One aspect:
>
> If Command files are to be a supported scripting language, then some
> form of support must be provided for file uploads, long free form text
> fields and other constructs which don't fit well in DCL symbols. (or
> update DCL to support those).
>