More CGI Stuff

[Yennie at aol.com]

> With 2) is the idea to have the cgi script switch on each call to
> another process?
> 
Yup. I figure if I spawn many cgi scripts but they all have to talk to the 
same long-running process, then I've lost all of the benefits of multiple 
processes anyway. So yeah- I'm trying to get multiple processes on the cgi 
end talking to multiple processes over sockets. Of course, if I could 
accomplish everything I wanted to in a cgi script, I wouldn't bother with the 
long-running processes.

> Re: my recent post are you using 2.4.3 with httpd? Having problems with
> my server under 2.4.3...
> 
I use my own server stack, although it works similarly to httpd. In limited 
tests, it works fine here under 2.4.3 / MacOS 10.1.


> In terms of IAC - which is what you are doing here right? Do you have
> any info regarding performance and the various techniques that are
> possible (in particular using an external, shell, and sockets)- what do
> you think:
> 
>     1) Shell (slowest)
> 
>     2) Sockets
> 
>     3) Externals (any faster?)
> 
I'm really just experimenting, so I don't have much evidence. However, I 
would say that sockets are probably more efficient that shell calls and using 
"open process" is probably at least as fast as sockets. I don't think 
externals would be much help unless under the hood unless they can access 
something faster than what Metacard already has- and I don't know what that 
would be!

FWIW,
Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/metacard/attachments/20020830/23821a0d/attachment.htm