On 10/13/05, Giovanni Pensa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While in a "housing" solution, how does Spiffy go? Any experience, > benchmarks, opinions about it? How could it compare with a > fastcgi/scgi solution? I see two mod_ solutions (Perl and PHP), > losing popularity against fastcgi/scgi solutions (PHP, Ruby, Python) > and only a few HTTP solutions (Lisp/Araneida, Python/Zope). I > understand a Common Lisp server, but maybe scheme is better suited for > "scripts". But Chicken can also be compiled, so I'm a bit confused. > Ideas? >
I can't really say much about all those different methods of interfacing to a http-client, but what I like about the "direct" approach with spiffy is that I have full control over dynamic content generation and the fact that I don't need to install and setup a separate tool. Directly running your code (interpreted, compiled and interpreted on the fly in .shp pages) in the server allows quite elegant solutions. But in the end it is a matter of taste, of course. Some things are much better handled via a cgi. Spiffys performance is acceptable (IMHO), some very simple benchmarks I made a while ago showed it to be halfway between the PLT server and the S48/SUnet server (serving a tiny static page). For complex dynamic content generated in compiled code, Spiffy should be faster than the PLT server, though. Chicken as the underlying implementation has very effficient threads - it would be interesting to compare the PLT server with Spiffy under very high load. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
