Julian Wiesener <jw@...> writes: > Hi Oliver, > > while it would not be difficult to add a default CGI component and could > make it easier to adopt tntnet for some use-cases, i also think it's a > bad idea to use tntnet in that way. You would loose all benefits of > tntnet, as you'll need to fork a child and execute external commands > (runtime interpreted in your case) which could be done (possible better) > as well with nginx or apache or any other webserver that supports CGI > execution.
You would loose some benefits of Tntnet when using Apache. And "could be done with nginx" is a bad argument, unless you *don't* want people to use the Tntnet as it is, a web server. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Tntnet-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tntnet-general
