dbohdan wrote on 09/02/2017 03:12 PM:
I rather like the SCGI protocol. It's a pity that it isn't as widely supported as FastCGI, considering that it's much simpler to implement (second only to plain old CGI), but still has a performance profile similar to FastCGI's.

I mostly implemented FastCGI in Racket at one point, but then I read about the FastCGI implementation in my target HTTP server having hard bugs, so I abandoned that.

I also think there are faster ways to serve HTTP from Racket, but I'd have to find funding to work through them.

And we have to keep in mind that, unlike benchmarks for LINPACK or standard transaction processing, the real-world applications of HTTP servers are messier. And also, I don't think many people have been tuning for Web application benchmarks, unlike was once done for LINPACK and TP. I think the Racket community has enough skill to make a respectable showing in a benchmark tuning war, or in general platform performance for real-world Web applications, but I'm not aware of any funding going into that right now.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to