in reply to Lightweight equivalent of Apache/CGI?

This seems first like a political/policy question, and secondarily a technological one.

installing Apache or IIS on PC's is banned outside the development env +ironment
What rationale exists for banning the use of these webservers that would permit the use of another? It sounds to me like the people who made this rule don't want webservers -- any webservers -- running outside of their control. While you would be following the letter of the law in using a smaller (in size and in public stature) server, I expect you'd be violating the spirit. I'd guess the prohibition is in place for security reasons and monitoring of traffic, and frankly these issues are going to be more pertinent using a roll-your-own or less proven product.

If this application really is something that people in your company want, then seek approval to use Apache on that local machine or on a server that the necessary clients can access. (Why does it need to be local anyway?) Trying to sneak it under the radar could come back to bite you.

"The dead do not recognize context" -- Kai, Lexx

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Lightweight equivalent of Apache/CGI?
by radiantmatrix (Parson) on Mar 28, 2005 at 16:38 UTC

    I'd guess the prohibition is in place for security reasons and monitoring of traffic

    You would think that, wouldn't you? But that's actually not the case.

    It is not an issue of "any webservers". It is that the web team supports all instances of Apache and IIS across the enterprise. They don't want the headache of supporting workstation installs, so we cannot install those on workstations. By choosing another lightweight server, the application support team is handed the responsibility of securing and supporting it; therefore, that's the route we're persuing.

    It needs to be local because there are people who the Board says need to work on it on notebook PC's while not connected to the network. Because of the type of app it is, that's fine; but I don't want to get stuck developing a new interface when we have one (in a browser) that works fine.

    require General::Disclaimer;
    s//2fde04abe76c036c9074586c1/; while(m/(.)/g){print substr(' ,JPacehklnorstu',hex($1),1)}

      FYI - in some organisations, one can file for a formal exception to the process. Theoretically, as long as the process for gaining exceptions is documented, and the formal exception itself is in writing (even if that is an email, if allowed by the process), you can get the exception and still claim full ISO9000 compliance. Back to reality, and we find that politics can easily despoil this utopia of ISO9000 compliance. (Well, as utopic as ISO9000 can be ;->)

      Short version: I'd look for a formal exception if possible. Of course, you may have already pursued this course, in which case I point it out solely for posterity in case someone else happens upon this thread in the same situation.

      (PS - The last time I saw "security" and "IIS" in the same sentence was in a MS advertisement, so I already guessed the OP was incorrect in their guess ;-})