On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the concrete advantages of using this engine over using Metacard to
> develop CGI solutions?
Not sure I follow this: the only way to do CGI with the full,
graphical, version of MetaCard is under MacOS, where CGI is done with
AppleEvents. But this engine is only for the UNIX part of Mac OS X
(aka Darwin) which doesn't support AppleEvents and instead uses stdio
(Standard I/O) for communication between the HTTP server and CGI
application. These things are *very* different from anything you may
have done with the graphical version of MetaCard. There are some
examples on the MetaCard WWW site.
> 1) Memory?
Should be considerably less than a full graphical application.
> 2) Speed?
Should be much faster than a graphical application, or any comparable
MacOS application because of UNIX's better architecture.
> 3) Script limits
There are none for MetaTalk scripts like this. This is true for all
of the UNIX engines and the console-mode Win32 engine too.
> Will the engine run Metacard stacks direct in "console-mode"? Does this
> require saving the stack as a standalone with this new engine?
You can refer to stacks to get data out of them, but they won't be
visible anywhere when you "go" to them. You can't build standalones
with .mt scripts.
Regards,
Scott
********************************************************
Scott Raney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.metacard.com
MetaCard: You know, there's an easier way to do that...
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.
