Wt

We are presently converting a WP site to Wt. We can tell you from personal experience that on an ongoing basis we remain impressed with Wt. Wt is a completely different approach to building websites than working with a system like Word Press.

The wordpress site we are converting can be found here;

https://www.creditcardbuilders.com

The replacement Wt site can be found here, but it is not live yet (at the time of this writing). Check back in a few days (fingers crossed).

http://us2.creditcardbuilders.com/

However, here are a couple of the preliminary pages we have put together that are live;

http://us2.creditcardbuilders.com/webinar-registration

http://us2.creditcardbuilders.com/prequalification

Just compare the responsiveness between the live Word Press site and the new server at "us2" and you can just 'feel' the difference.

The Wt site we are building replaces this site fit, form and function.

What we have discovered is Word Press does what we consider to be a pretty lousy job at "user forms interfaces", while Wt does a remarkable job of the same. We have not converted the "blog" pages section of the Word Press tool kit, we are so-far replacing the basic static pages, the user sign-up pages, and the back-end pages used by clients and staff. This back-end aspect of this project is really where Wt shines.

As far as transferring WP Blog pages to Wt, one of the major problems we are having with that task is all the CSS formatting used by Word Press. If we are to convert an existing Word Press site and leave the appearance the same, we are finding that extricating pages from the Word Press site and migrating them to Wt requires a great deal of HTML clean up and CSS clean up. So, it is not as simple as copying Word Press content and pasting it in to Wt.

On the performance side... nothing matches. We have never experienced any unexplainable latencies in the interface between the server and the browser. The Wt development site has seen a fair amount of traffic (as the site is not entirely live yet) but even in heavier traffic moments the server is extremely responsive.

Bottom line, will NEVER build any other website using any other platform other than Wt.

Thats great.

Are you using the same WP database as it is? like keeping the tables and fields as same?

When I looked the samples, i saw lot of memory allocation using new. Have you faced any memory leaks or any such issues?

if huge traffic is there, do we need lot of memory?

Is it possible shared hosting? I saw the FastCGI, but there is not much documentation or samples.

Regards,

Jagadees.

We are allowing Wt to manage the database creation - that's really the only way to go. We have not created a 'blog' section yet so we have not decided if we are going to maintain the structure from WP or not. My first thought about it is we will probably have some adaptation of a 'blog' concept, according to our needs.

For the most part, the public-side of our website consists of static pages so we have simply coded those in to .xml message files. When we get to our blog pages we know we are facing a lot of html and css clean up. When we install a blog table, we will probably copy most of what is in WP, but that all remains to be seen. The simple fact is creating tables and relating them to other tables is really trivial in Wt. You can make a rather complicated database schema simply by creating C classes and establishing links between them - Wt handles all the back-end stuff.

I have found no memory leaks in Wt.

It's hard to quantify "do you need a lot of memory"... it really depends on what your application is doing. One thing is true that if you have a table with millions of rows of data, those rows are easily represented in a table-view and Wt does a remarkable job of managing the list of items represented in that table view so that only small requests are sent to the database server, and the table only contains the rows that are actually visible plus a few extra. When the browser is refreshed or closed, all the memory related to that session is freed. Again, nothing to think about here, Wt handles all of it.

We run the built-in server in Wt and do not use the FastCGI option. According to the documentation the FastCGI option is really not much of an advantage.

Wt in a 'shared' environment is problematic if you do not have root access to the server... unless perhaps if you can install a FastCGI component... a task which I'm completely unfamiliar with.

Wt does have a fairly steep learning curve - at least it has for us. In our case, we have contracted with the developer for training and support, and we have a call with them about an hour each week (or so) where we go over specific issues that we don't understand or cannot solve quickly on our own. Their support has been extremely valuable to us and help keep our project moving forward quickly. When we identify bugs in Wt (so far only one or two that I can think of) they respond quickly with a patch.

Again, once you wrap your brain around it, working inside Wt is a delight. Just having a screaming fast web server is an amazing experience in and of itself.

~mark