On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I suppose I don't consider CGI to be archaic. CGI is simple, > concise, easy to administer, easy to implement (on both ends), efficient, > and is supported by all web-servers (except nginx). > Thank you for the detailed insights. i feel compelled to amend my statement about it being archaic to "i _thought_ it was archaic until Fossil showed me otherwise." Since then i've written several CGIs in C and didn't feel the slightest bit archaic while doing so :). > The Fossil and SQLite websites spin up about 4 or 5 new worker processes > per second on a debian linux VM at Linode.com that is a 1/24th slice of an > actual server. And yet the load average stays down around 5%. People say > "Oh, you could go so much faster using $COOL_NEW_TECHNOLOGY". But I doubt > it. And even if we could, with the load average holding steady at 5%, it > isn't worth the trouble. Better to keep things simple and reliable. > Amen! -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
