Dave,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 3:27 PM David Wetzel <dave@turbocat.de> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I think that would be a good idea. What we would need for a site that gets lots of hits is probably some optimizing of the apache module.
We are currently opening/closing a new socket on each request.
If you need anything I might be able to help in the next 30 days. From mid-December on I am busy...
For consistency, I would recommend using WO names instead of GSW in the templates. Manuel was just making that change back then when WebObject was still a product. But now, I do not see the reason for GSW names in templates. It makes it harder for people to apply knowledge from WebObjects documentation to GSWeb.
Cheers,
Dave
Agreed 100%. The names should be moved to using WO names instead of GSW names. GSW should, as with Foundation and AppKit, be used for functionality that is specific to our implementation. Let me know when and if you can help. I realize you said you're busy from this point forward. I hadn't revisited this thread until now. Work has been very overbearing.
> Am 2022-11-16 um 08:12 schrieb Gregory Casamento <greg.casamento@gmail.com>:
>
> Guys,
>
> Do you think we should have part of the website use WebObjects/GSWeb as a sort of demo of GNUstep itself?
>
> I have recently been playing with it locally and it has me wondering if that might be a viable thing for us to do.
Yours, GC
Gregory Casamento
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=352392 - Become a Patron
GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant
http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com
https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=352392 - Become a Patron
https://gf.me/u/x8m3sx - My GNUstep GoFundMe