CGI for Slide show

Sivakatirswami katir at
Sat Oct 21 07:00:51 EDT 2006

OK, that's all very interesting. and I think I understand about half of it.


a) given CPU speeds of web servers are increasing

witness: The dual Xeon processor on our managed dedicated server at 
ServerPath with 100 Megabit dedicated socket for our box,  (no other box 
on  our same C class network before the router) hardly ever sees more 
than an 10% usage, much to my surprise, of course, we are not CNN or 
Sports Illustrated..POINT: I just don't see *anything* we throw at this 
hardware/network slowing down the user experience at all. i.e. so all 
the discussion about  multiple instances of Rev etc. seem meaningless. 
(no doubt I am missing something since is seems to be such a *big* issue 
for others) we are talking processes that are miniscule events in 
today's microchip world.

b) Bandwidth is increasing... "cracking that sort of web gui  issue. "
what do we have to "crack" -- can you be more explicit?

I mean... we're not asking the server to return Gaussian blur on a 20 
Meg photoshop file that lives on our local hard drive. (goes to the 
whole futuristic "it will all be web based one day." let's forget that 
for's way too soon to let those concepts influence real world 
2006 webdev decisions)

BACK TO MY POINT:  What's wrong with the old fashioned" iFrame model (or 
target="_top" for a pop up window) ... where you just have a Rev CGi 
fill it.

i.e. you didn't directly answer my question as to why AJAX is better.
I'm actually trying to see if anyone knows enough about this to 
articulate a better way and why.
Admittedly this is a vague query.. we are trying to grok the next decade 
  of web dev....

Of course, Rev CGI or back  end stacks  will handle  everything, that's 
a given.
(since xTalk is the only language I know... though I can "grok" PHP..and 
I do edit PHP scripts
for  our wiki "PMWiki"  PHP still leaves me cold)

Note that we never bring "Flash" into this discussion. Because, correct 
me if I am wrong, for a non-profit to buy into the Macromedia (now 
adobe) development suite = big bucks we don't have. If there is a 
lo-cost model for bringing Macromedia tools into the enterprise (at 
least 5 seats= $10,000 plus, if you factor in 3 years upgrades) I don't 
see it.... so if we can do the same thing with good ol'fashioned html, 
open source CSS  and Rev cgi's I'll be happy and so will Tim ... 
inventor of the web. We are living his dream instead of building 
proprietary UI for browsers. (flash)


Sivakatirswami (who is also praying for a linux engine that will run 2.7 
stacks on a web server!)

David Bovill wrote:
> I really think forgetting Java for this is clear. A standard one off flash
> or AJAX solution with variable data passed to it via a Rev based backed
> seems solid to me. Of course it could be any programming language not just
> Rev, but there is absolutely no reason not to use a Rev stack based cgi.
> In general it would be "cooler" (who cares) to use an AJAX solution - you
> may be able to get slightly more browsers supporting a simple 
> css/javascript
> version? But easier to use a Flash based solution.
> For me I want to explore the AJAX solution with the Rev "cgi" responding to
> either an XMLHTTP request or a simpler javascript call with rev responding
> with JSON output containing teh sort of data contained in the
> packageloop.txt. But that is mainly because of the more general 
> implications
> of cracking that sort of web gui  issue.
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
> subscription preferences:

Om shanti
(In  Peace)


Get Hinduism Today Digital Edition. It's Free!

More information about the use-livecode mailing list