LiveNode Server

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:

 > On 5 April 2015 at 05:01, Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >
 >> David Bovill wrote:
 >> > I am not quite sure what not being forkable is here - can you
 >> > explain.
 >>
 >> Not as well as Andre:
 >> 
<http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/use-livecode/2009-January/119437.html>


 > Ok - so the key sentance there is - "We can't fork in revolution".
 > So what does that mean? What is so special about Livecode that
 > it can't do this?
 > It's not multi-threading - it's something.... ?
 >
 > My thinking is that what we need is to be able to have some existing
 > monitoring service keep a pool of LiveNode servers up and running -
 > in a way in which you can configure the number of servers you need.
 > Then you need a Node load balancing server / broker thing passing off
 > messages asynchronously to a LiveNode server and immediately
 > returning control to the user. only when all the LiveNode servers
 > were used up - would a cue kick into action?
 >
 > This is all standard server / inter-application messaging stuff no?
 > What prevents us doing that in Livecode?

As you read in Andre's post I linked to, that's more or less what he 
proposes as an alternative to FastCGI.

If one is willing to put the time into assembling such a 
multi-processing pool, the downsides relative to having forking appear 
to be somewhat minor, not likely the sort of thing we'd run into south 
of the C10k problem.

What have you run into in trying this that isn't working?

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
  ____________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com        http://www.FourthWorld.com