3 ms·

Elixir Cowboy with IIS 8

28 points by zabi_rauf 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago
This could already be done with the older ISAPI filter/module API. This is how we integrated Tcl with IIS back in 2000 for our application server that was deployable into IIS and Apache.
- satysin 12y ago
  Yeah but how horrible was setting up IIS and ISAPI back in server 2003. I still remember the anxiety when a problem was reported on one of the IIS servers. I don't work with IIS anymore so I hope it has improved, don't see how it could have gotten any worse.
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    As far I know the .NET version of the modules APIs are better, the problem was the C based API. I don't do ISAPI since 2002. Still, the capabilities were already there, even if the API wasn't that pleasant to work with.
angersock 12y ago
Handy bit of administration and deployment information, but I still wonder: ...why? Azure already has *nix VM support, yes? So, why creak along with Windows boxen?
- blumkvist 12y ago
  Some people like IIS. Very much.
- platz 12y ago
  Wondering this myself. Maybe to comply with enterprise policies for on-site deployments? On site seems more useful for this than azure
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  For small users with less experience/resources, Windows can be attractive to manage and feel friendly. Just like there's people that like using the Network Manager GUI on Linux distros. Windows offers a lot of stuff with a few clicks, without having to read or understand too much. Like SQL Server, setting up even advanced fail over cluster systems is pretty simple. A day's work, even if you've never done it before. That's attractive. Plus there's all the corp management stuff like AD, which Linux doesn't have for real. At least not as slick and smoothly integrated. But yeah, even as a long time MS user, I'm less impressed with it as time goes on. No containers. IIS's reverse proxy support is a sick joke. No equivalent of DRBD; no real tweaking in general. And IIS didn't have SPDY. It'll be showing to see how they handle HTTP/2. Will they stick to the lame line of "http.sys is the HTTP stack, so only Windows 10 can do HTTP/2"? (IIRC, that's how WebSockets story went.) Or will they just do the right thing and make it work? Anyways, your question is one MS is very aware of, and in the center of a lot of Azure. For a quad core VM, Windows costs an extra $1000+ a year on the cloud platforms. MS knows this is often not a good ROI.
  - angersock 12y ago
    The AD/LDAP support on Windows Server is pretty amazing, and I really like their administration interface. As for the rest, well--let's just say I'm trying my damnedest to migrate one of our products off of Windows hosting, because frankly the impedance mismatch for testing and automation is just so much lower on 'nix. Also, the licensing is an issue.

28 points by zabi_rauf 12y ago

pjmlp 12y ago

This could already be done with the older ISAPI filter/module API. This is how we integrated Tcl with IIS back in 2000 for our application server that was deployable into IIS and Apache.

satysin 12y ago
Yeah but how horrible was setting up IIS and ISAPI back in server 2003. I still remember the anxiety when a problem was reported on one of the IIS servers. I don't work with IIS anymore so I hope it has improved, don't see how it could have gotten any worse.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  As far I know the .NET version of the modules APIs are better, the problem was the C based API. I don't do ISAPI since 2002. Still, the capabilities were already there, even if the API wasn't that pleasant to work with.

angersock 12y ago

Handy bit of administration and deployment information, but I still wonder: ...why? Azure already has *nix VM support, yes? So, why creak along with Windows boxen?

blumkvist 12y ago
Some people like IIS. Very much.
platz 12y ago
Wondering this myself. Maybe to comply with enterprise policies for on-site deployments? On site seems more useful for this than azure
MichaelGG 12y ago
For small users with less experience/resources, Windows can be attractive to manage and feel friendly. Just like there's people that like using the Network Manager GUI on Linux distros. Windows offers a lot of stuff with a few clicks, without having to read or understand too much. Like SQL Server, setting up even advanced fail over cluster systems is pretty simple. A day's work, even if you've never done it before. That's attractive. Plus there's all the corp management stuff like AD, which Linux doesn't have for real. At least not as slick and smoothly integrated. But yeah, even as a long time MS user, I'm less impressed with it as time goes on. No containers. IIS's reverse proxy support is a sick joke. No equivalent of DRBD; no real tweaking in general. And IIS didn't have SPDY. It'll be showing to see how they handle HTTP/2. Will they stick to the lame line of "http.sys is the HTTP stack, so only Windows 10 can do HTTP/2"? (IIRC, that's how WebSockets story went.) Or will they just do the right thing and make it work? Anyways, your question is one MS is very aware of, and in the center of a lot of Azure. For a quad core VM, Windows costs an extra $1000+ a year on the cloud platforms. MS knows this is often not a good ROI.
- angersock 12y ago
  The AD/LDAP support on Windows Server is pretty amazing, and I really like their administration interface. As for the rest, well--let's just say I'm trying my damnedest to migrate one of our products off of Windows hosting, because frankly the impedance mismatch for testing and automation is just so much lower on 'nix. Also, the licensing is an issue.