On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Mike Orr wrote:
On 3/9/06, David Binger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 9, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On 3/9/2006 10:19 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote:
On 3/8/2006 8:59 PM, David Binger wrote:
There isn't any difference between QP and Quixote with respect
to compatibility. The scgi server used by both uses passfd, which
does not run on Windows.
But the protocol doesn't require *forking*, right? It's an
implementation detail. Writing a less-efficient but stable-and-
semantically-equivalent SCGI implementation for win32 shouldn't be
a total show-stopper, just a fun weekend challenge for
someone. :-).
Oops, replace 'forking' with 'passfd'. Still true, n'est-ce pas?
Right. Any volunteers?
This would be a synchronious server then or a multithreaded server?
The server in qp dispatches connections to a pool of subprocesses,
using exactly the same pattern as Quixote's scgi server.
If there is a way to get similar behavior on Windows, that would
be my personal preference.
I think we could make QP work with a multithreaded server if we
modify the set_publisher()/get_publisher() functions to store
and maintain a separate Publisher instance for each thread.
I think I'll go ahead and do that anyway to make it easier to try.
It would also be cool if we could make QP and Durus twisted-friendly.
Would that be difficult?
_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixote-users
