Subject: Re: [boost] CGI / FastCGI library update
From: Darren Garvey (darren.garvey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-20 13:49:40
On 20 May 2010 11:01, Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Artyom skrev:
> If so can you please give me any rationale what is the difference (from
>> application point of view) between
>> - FastCGI over TCP/IP
>> - FastCGI over Unix Domain Sockets?
>> - SCGI over TCP/IP - SCGI over Unix Domain Sockets?
>> If so give me one reason why should my application be compiled
>> for each type of these?
>> Good luck :-)
> (I pressume you want the library to include a compiled binary
> witht the implementation hidden behind pimpls)
> Why should I be forced to link with code I don't use or rely on virtual
> functions, if I only
> need one of the above?
You shouldn't be. Especially since you are free to implement a PImpl-like
interface over this library. Sounds like a good idea for an example. There
is a very old one in the SVN repo that shows how to support both FastCGI and
CGI (I must update these):
It's a bit ugly which is why it is not included in the documentation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk