Hi I've been reading the latest thread and some old archives about CGI in MC
and I have a quick question.
It seems to me that it is being suggested that the best, quickest and
easiest way to run sripts with MCHTTPd is to use the stacks-bin and thus not
startUp a new process. This may be a stipid question but what happens if
there are two clients wanting the same thing at the same time? As it's the
same process wouldn't MCHTTPd need to wait untill the last script is
finnished before it can do anything?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott Raney
> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2001 9:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Announcing MetaCard 2.3.2 for Darwin/Mac OS X
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 David Bovill <[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.
> >
> > ??? What was I doing when I used the full graphical
> version/engine for MC on
> > Linux as the CGI engine for Apache? I was sure I got this working -:) In
> > other words presuming this wasn't a case of false memory
> syndrome brought
> > about by an over enthusiatic adoption of the incomprehensible power of
> > Metacard...
>
> On UNIX it's the same *engine*, it just runs in two different *modes*.
> Which it runs in depends on what it finds on the command line when it
> starts up, a stack, a .mt script, or nothing. There are two different
> Win32 engines, though, because you can't produce a single executable
> that does both on Windows. The Darwin engine works just like the
> other UNIX engines, though the graphical mode will only work if you
> install and run an X server first. The Carbon engine only supports
> the graphical mode. So the situation on Mac OS X will be similar to
> Windows (you'll use one of two different engines depending on what you
> need to do).
>
> > How does the MC/Linux/Apache solution differ from the console
> version CGI
> > solutions performance/implementation wise?
>
> These are the same thing. The only other way to do it is with
> mchttpd, which will run scripts (CGIs) faster but serve image and text
> files slower. There is no MetaCard equivalent of something like
> "mod_perl" where the language interpreter is actually loaded into the
> address space of the HTTP server, which kind of gets you the best of
> both worlds. It'd be pretty straightforward to build something like
> that (much easier than a WWW browser plugin, for one), but since we
> don't know of anyone that's run into a performance problem in this
> area yet, we haven't scheduled building anything like that.
> 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.
>
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.
