On 11/12/00 7:28 PM, Pierre Sahores wrote:
> andu a �crit :
>>
>>> 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.
>
> You mc code need optimisation. I would never serve something on the web in
> using
> a piece of code unable to reply in more than 50/60 ticks.
Even if I can cut each query down to 30 ticks, I'll have problem when I have
5 to 10 hits per seconds - and yes, it happens.
On an on going development project, I just don't have luxury to think
"optimised" over "functional".
>>> 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
>
> Use only "POST" procedures and boost the Ram over more than 256 Mo.
Can you elaborate how "POST" is better then "GET"?
>>> - 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.
>
> Hum ! Code optimisations needed...
Hmmm... sometime you just cannot optimise more ;-)
>>> 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.
>
> I agree too if is it to say that Unixes both cgi's and web applications
> servers solutions are the best ways to serve complexes web solutions in using
> php, omnisstudio, webobjects or, best, metacard (i'm still testing a mc/mysql
> solution on Linux and it seems it could become a good way to serve the
> web...).
How do you access mySQL from MC? Sorry if this has been discussed in this
list.
> I'm not sure to agree if someone think WinNT/Apache or WinNT/IIS4 (XiTami not
> tested for yet) are better handling cgi or web apps solutions than MacOS 8.6 +
> WebStar 3.02 + AppleEvents (boosted by the free and very fine PopToFront XCMD
> from Maxum Corp) + HC or MC...
I noticed MetaCard runs fine in the background (Mac). I used to keep
HyperCard running as front most application in order to build a reasonable
responsive CGI, but with MetaCard, putting WebSTAR as front most seems
faster.
> Just see one of my last mails about the answers delays for the same mc e-com
> solution tested on macos, linux and winnt. I have installed such a G3 solution
> on a professional backbone witch run without any app bugs or system crashes
> since 01/98.
But again you were referring to a relatively simple CGI request, and
probably low traffic web site.
> The problem with the macos way (and winnt too) is the system memory handling.
> To get good results on mac, you must avoid the use of "GET" requests, have
> more than 256 Mo of ram installed and optimise the hc/mc code even more and
> more... Sure that today, it's probably better to use unixes, even in waiting
> for MacOS X, in all cases...
Couldn't agreed more.
> On the other hand, WinNT seems unable to handle cleanly others web serving
> solutions than asp's/sql server (the separated memory processes system is only
> reserved to SQL Server, most of the jobs are handled in the Win Apps partaged
> memory process, just like MacOS 8/9 does) and, clearly, it's not working as
> fine as a clean configured MacOS 8 solution can.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I did'nt test it enough and could'nt handle "POST" requests in using it.
That could be easily enhanced I think. But I cannot understand why must POST
better then GET? Is this a browser issue or server? I use both - and frankly
I was avoiding POST if necessary - GET is easier to debug where everything
is clear on the browser URL.
Regards,
LiangTyan Fui
>> 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.
>
> Regards, Pierre Sahores
>
> chef de projet cyberlibrairie
> SNPIN - CNDP. 91, rue Gabriel-Peri
> 92120 Montrouge. T�l.: 01.64.45.05.33
>
> Penser la part du r�ve et
> produire l'avantage comp�titif.
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.
