Am 14.08.2013 08:55, schrieb ArtemGr: > 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. >
I use tntnet at tho moment mainly in conjunction with ipxe http-boot. This isnt the "standard" web-server opteration, but tntnet does a really good job here (i.e. booting 250MB partedmagic-imagi in <2s). On other side he will be used for some other, not so speed-critical things, but i dont want to use multiple different web-servers in parallel on my small machine. Regards Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
