I prefer goahead as the web server, due to LuCI is too slow and take too much memory, LuCI2 might be better, I did not test yet, from the intro, LuCI2 is using pipe, is that a good idea?
Using goahead, we do not need httpd, lua back server, etc, it is much simple and beautiful.
Just compiled a goahead, and put my simple bootstrap site on it, works really great! Fast, stable, less resource consume. And most important, very easy to call backend C functions.
Does anybody know why not choose goahead for openwrt as default web server at beginning? Secure reason?
Later, I will write a blog about how to make goahead run on openwrt/VoCore. 🙂
goAhead is using ASP as solution. I guess opensource community won’t like MS style tool. RT530F SDK is also provide goAhead as a manager method. I meet problem for different browser.
goAhead is small and efficient. Luci provide much more powerful solution.
goahead is not asp solution, that just backend code, it also support javascript.
The browser do not compatible I think that is caused by the html/js code.
ASP is server side. It has two flavors, ASP Classic (like PHP) and ASP.NET (.NET Framework, compiled into CIL, run in bytecode interpreter).
PHP, ASP Classic, and ASP.NET are too heavy for the VoCore, in terms of memory usage. ASP.NET would need Mono to run, and that’s heavy by itself!
If Lua is lighter weight than Perl, then it would be good fit for the VoCore.
Ye, goahead just embed part of the ASP (far from the full one) at server side, so it is very light weight, they said it only cost 60KB memory when it runs 🙂
I doubt it runs ASP Classic on the VoCore. That must be a custom engine.
goAhead ASP vs. httpd php (Luci did not use.)
goAhead JS vs httpd JS. (JS is for client part, so there are no different.)
goAhead CGI (C funciton.) vs httpd CGI Lua wrapper.
LuCI did not heavily use JS, but based on cgi/Lua solution.
I guess you will use more JS and backend CGI to give complete solution.
Nop, just Lua and httpd cost much resource than goahead. Both side do not use much JS or ASP.