With 2) is the idea to have the cgi script switch on each call to
another process?
Yup. I figure if I spawn many cgi scripts but they all have to talk to the same long-running process, then I've lost all of the benefits of multiple processes anyway. So yeah- I'm trying to get multiple processes on the cgi end talking to multiple processes over sockets. Of course, if I could accomplish everything I wanted to in a cgi script, I wouldn't bother with the long-running processes.
Re: my recent post are you using 2.4.3 with httpd? Having problems with
my server under 2.4.3...
I use my own server stack, although it works similarly to httpd. In limited tests, it works fine here under 2.4.3 / MacOS 10.1.
In terms of IAC - which is what you are doing here right? Do you have
any info regarding performance and the various techniques that are
possible (in particular using an external, shell, and sockets)- what do
you think:
1) Shell (slowest)
2) Sockets
3) Externals (any faster?)
I'm really just experimenting, so I don't have much evidence. However, I would say that sockets are probably more efficient that shell calls and using "open process" is probably at least as fast as sockets. I don't think externals would be much help unless under the hood unless they can access something faster than what Metacard already has- and I don't know what that would be!
FWIW,
Brian
