Re: [Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?
Hi Matt, On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:40:49 -0700 matt welland m...@kiatoa.com wrote: I read though the docs but didn't see mention of cgi, is it supported? Unfortunately not. Awful runs on top of Spiffy. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 05:32:23 -0500 Mario Domenech Goulart mario.goul...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:40:49 -0700 matt welland m...@kiatoa.com wrote: I read though the docs but didn't see mention of cgi, is it supported? Unfortunately not. Awful runs on top of Spiffy. OTOH, if you can run a server on other ports, you can bind awful/spiffy to, say, port 8080 and use your front-end web server as a proxy for awful/spiffy. There's yet another approach, which is horrible and should probably not even be mentioned, but should still work (considering you can run a server and bind it to a port, and you _cannot_ use the front-end server as a proxy, but the CGI interface is available): make a CGI program which accesses awful giving it the request parameters (using the http-client egg, for example) and reply back to the front-end server the awful response. That'd be totally awful, although awful would be just part of the whole solution. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?
On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 06:56 -0500, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 05:32:23 -0500 Mario Domenech Goulart mario.goul...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:40:49 -0700 matt welland m...@kiatoa.com wrote: I read though the docs but didn't see mention of cgi, is it supported? Unfortunately not. Awful runs on top of Spiffy. OTOH, if you can run a server on other ports, you can bind awful/spiffy to, say, port 8080 and use your front-end web server as a proxy for awful/spiffy. There's yet another approach, which is horrible and should probably not even be mentioned, but should still work (considering you can run a server and bind it to a port, and you _cannot_ use the front-end server as a proxy, but the CGI interface is available): make a CGI program which accesses awful giving it the request parameters (using the http-client egg, for example) and reply back to the front-end server the awful response. In your second awful scenario the (rather wonderful afaict) awful must still be a long running process, correct? That'd be totally awful, although awful would be just part of the whole solution. Best wishes. Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 07:01:37 -0700 matt welland m...@kiatoa.com wrote: On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 06:56 -0500, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 05:32:23 -0500 Mario Domenech Goulart mario.goul...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:40:49 -0700 matt welland m...@kiatoa.com wrote: I read though the docs but didn't see mention of cgi, is it supported? Unfortunately not. Awful runs on top of Spiffy. OTOH, if you can run a server on other ports, you can bind awful/spiffy to, say, port 8080 and use your front-end web server as a proxy for awful/spiffy. There's yet another approach, which is horrible and should probably not even be mentioned, but should still work (considering you can run a server and bind it to a port, and you _cannot_ use the front-end server as a proxy, but the CGI interface is available): make a CGI program which accesses awful giving it the request parameters (using the http-client egg, for example) and reply back to the front-end server the awful response. In your second awful scenario the (rather wonderful afaict) awful must still be a long running process, correct? Yes, that's correct. Best wishes. Mario -- http://parenteses.org/mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?
On 02/20/11 15:36, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: In your second awful scenario the (rather wonderful afaict) awful must still be a long running process, correct? Yes, that's correct. The CGI could, if awful is not responding, fire it up though (with, if rquired, steps taken to prevent two simultaneous requests firing up two awfuls), if I can't start daemons at startup as I'm not root is an issue here... Best wishes. Mario ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?
I read though the docs but didn't see mention of cgi, is it supported? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
