Linuxdoc Linux Questions
Click here to ask our community of linux experts!
Custom Search

2.3. Comparing Caudium with Apache

Caudium differs from Apache in many ways including the directory structure, programming language, and type of configuration. Caudium has a fully integrated web interface, while Apache relies on editing text files directly. Moreover, any change to the Apache configuration requires a restart of the server, while Caudium sees the changes immediately after you save them from the web interface. There are also some differences in the vocabulary used in the configuration interface. Another difference is that Apache 1.3 uses a forked process model while Caudium uses threads or a monolithic process model, depending on the features present in the copy of Pike it uses. Caudium allows the programmer/user to easily extend the server using modules/scripts written in Pike that integrate tightly with the core server and, thus, create a more robust, faster and more intuitive entity than an Apache server augmented with a set of external dynamically loadable libraries. While changing anything in the source code of any Apache extension (or the server itself) requires recompilation, relinking and restarting of the whole server, Caudium allows one to add/remove/modify code without any interruption of the server operation. If you modify a module all you need to do to see the effects of your work is to reload the module in question using the configuration interface. Caudium's architecture also provides easy means of building highly dynamic web pages that use SQL, gdbm, Mird databases, LDAP, dynamically generated graphics (including business graphics modules) and more. The same effect can be achieved with Apache almost only by using external set of Perl, Python, or other language, scripts running as CGI or embedded using a dynamically loaded module. While allowing the programmer/designer to use CGI modules, Caudium offers more power when the source code is integrated with the Caudium core.