|
Boost : |
From: Olaf van der Spek (olafvdspek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-10 04:27:01
On 3/9/07, Darren Garvey <lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 09/03/07, Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/9/07, Darren Garvey <lists.drrngrvy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > Well I've been having a go implementing the fastcgi protocol using asio
> > and
> > > even though it's not finished, I believe given some dedicated time I
> > could
> > > have it fully working. SCGI is supposed to be 'simple' - and seems to be
> > -
> > > so that shouldn't be too big a deal to add: either way, that is
> > something
> > > that could follow, I suppose? Then there's the docs of course. Forgoing
> > any
> >
> > Which servers support SCGI but not FCGI?
>
>
> It shouldn't matter because there's no guaranteed way to differentiate a
> SCGI request from an FCGI one (although you can make a good guess, I
> suppose). Your point is noted though: SCGI should be included in any
> CGI/FCGI proposal.
Actually, my point is more like the opposite. If all servers that
support SCGI also support FCGI, there's no point in writing a client
lib that supports SCGI because FCGI is faster (AFAIK) and will always
be supported.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk