>Yes, I've been using the AppleEvent handle on Mac for CGI some time ago. But
>the major concern here is the complexity of the CGI. Suppose I have a chunk
>of code that would takes a long time to execute (10 seconds?), the second
>query from the AppleEvent will have to wait.
>In most case this is ok if I plan carefully, but when I start deploying
>complex solution this way, I have to always ensure:
>- each query has to be short
>- push complex processing to other application, if I use MetaCard (the CGI
>in this case), the CGI will still hog.
>- slice long processing with "send xxx to yyy in 1 second with zzzz", making
>codes become more complex.
>
>Even with all the above, I still get unreasonable performance on extremely
>busy situation (10 to 20 cgi hit a second?)
>
>Well I must say this has something to do with AppleEvent and the way CGI has
>been implemented on the Mac. The same limitation are effecting ALL CGIs on
>the Mac as well, not only MetaCard.
Most inefficient, I agree. Not sure I understand your comment bellow but MCHTTPd *is*
the way to go (in theory) in terms of efficiency in this case. Unfortunately I didn't
have
enough motivation to develop it beyond the demo state.
But talking about web servers I recently experimented with Xitami and I highly
recommend it as an alternative to Apache at least when it comes to configuration.
Related to this discussion, it has no problem calling MC cgi scripts.
>
>While the cmc.exe and Unix based MetaCard have advantage to handle queries
>simultaneously, but overhead on loading the CGI and initialising the
>solution might be high. And concept of implementing these CGI is very
>different on the Mac CGI (and MCHttpd too).
>
>Regards,
>LiangTyan Fui
>
Regards, Andu
_______________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
