[Catalyst] C::E::HTTP::Prefork [was Re: Lighttpd and mod_perlite]

[Brad Bowman]

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> Hi Brad,
> 
> * Brad Bowman <list at bereft.net> [2009-06-09 10:05]:
>> Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>>> I like to use ::Engine::HTTP::Prefork coupled with whatever
>>> reverse proxy server strikes one’s fancy (whether it be Squid,
>>> Apache mod_proxy, Varnish, lighttpd, whatever). Additionally I
>>> like to use ::Plugin::Static::Simple, sending proper Expires
>>> headers so that the reverse proxy will keep those cached files
>>> around forever.
>>>
>>> That takes decoupling to its logical conclusion: the
>>> application server is standalone and works completely
>>> independently from the internet-facing server. You can fire
>>> requests at it like you would at any webserver. You can use
>>> the same engine during development and in production. There
>>> are more advantages, but I forget.
>>>
>>> It’s all very, very nice.
>> I'd like to know more about this.
>>
>> (It almost sounds to good to be true...)
> 
> what questions do you have? All I can think to say right now is
> look at Catalyst::Engine::HTTP::Prefork and work from there…

Sorry to be so slow on the reply.

I think the combination of "There are more advantages, [which the
margin is too narrow to contain]" and "It's all very, very nice"
got me curious enough to ask.  Particularly as I'd been running
with the assumption that the various pure Perl servers weren't
production capable (I'm glad to be wrong about this).

Some questions then...
How does it effect administration and server life-cycle?
Can you do any new things, beyond alternatives like Apache/FCGI?
Are there any traps to be wary of?
Do you use multiple CEHP back-ends on a single front-end?

It seems like you could have user-to-backend affinity quite
easily, for a sufficiently small user base.

I should mention that this is the first time I've looked at these
modules, so feel free to send me doc links if the answers are there.

Thanks,

Brad