How hard is socket programming?
in [MFC]
|
Prev: Runtime Error does not specify program???
Next: windows 7 - imitating touch by sending wm_gesture ?
From: Peter Olcott on 16 Mar 2010 21:16 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:ueIgi6WxKHA.1692(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > > >> Fastest speed is highest priority, secondary to this is >> portability, it looks like FastCGI provides both. >> Another very high priority is minimal development costs. >> As far as I can tell FastCGI is good here too. > > Dude, FastCGI is not a "Language." Its an idea, a > methodology that was designed with EARLY needs to speed up > loading time. You won't have that problem today. You continue to ignore my repeatedly stated requirement of 4.0 GB of data (a deterministic finite automaton) that must be loaded before execution can begin. If you ignore my fundamental requirements you can't possibly provide good advice. > Its nonsense to think this is "answer" to > your problem. In addition, if you worry about processing > speed, native C/C++ is your choice, so all you are doing > is writing a CGI application, a console application that > reads standard input. > > If you want productivity, learn PHP. Simple, well > supported. Then if you really find out that FASTCGI is > needed for your slow OS and machine, PHP supports it. > > The point is your SOLUTION is not FASTCGI, it is the > actual application that does the work. > > -- > HLS
From: Hector Santos on 16 Mar 2010 21:19 Peter Olcott wrote: > "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message >>> FastCGI is portable across platforms, and most often >>> faster than alternatives. >>> >> You are trusting the WIKI's too much. > > Not just Wikis, I have examined at least one book from > Amazon too. So? You really don't know what you are reading Peter. > All That I need is a minimal cost way to keep my > 4.0 GB of data loaded into memory. FastCGI is based on > Sockets. Independent concepts. The twain shall never meet. Honestly, you will be best to use FTP. Some Browser allow a Drag and Drop with FTP backends. FTP has two channels, DATA and COMMAND so you can handle aborts and timeouts better. -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 16 Mar 2010 21:31 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:un$1i$WxKHA.6140(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in >> message > > >>>> FastCGI is portable across platforms, and most often >>>> faster than alternatives. > > >>> > >>> You are trusting the WIKI's too much. >> >> Not just Wikis, I have examined at least one book from >> Amazon too. > > > So? You really don't know what you are reading Peter. > >> All That I need is a minimal cost way to keep my 4.0 GB >> of data loaded into memory. FastCGI is based on Sockets. > > > Independent concepts. The twain shall never meet. > > Honestly, you will be best to use FTP. Some Browser > allow a Drag and Drop with FTP backends. FTP has two > channels, DATA and COMMAND so you can handle aborts and > timeouts better. That is not simple enough for my users. I want a browse button on a webpage that browses the local hard-drive. It seems that the only completely portable way to do this is HTML and this HTML is hooked up to CGI. Maybe I could build something from scratch at the other end to handle the input. I would guess that this would not provide any improvement over C++ FastCGI, and cost more development time. I am leaning toward Linux now, so a Microsoft thing ported to Linux may not be as good as a native Linux thing. > > -- > HLS
From: Hector Santos on 16 Mar 2010 21:33 Peter Olcott wrote: > "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message >> You are trusting the WIKI's too much. > > There are also several very successful commercial products > that are based on FastCGI. But it has nothing to do with FASTCGI. You don't know what it means obviously. Look, There are two kinds of web server: Application Servers with their application framework with embedded server-side languages and built-in ways to process 3rd party applications called SCRIPT MAPS. Some vendors has their own methods, like ISAPI, ASP, like our own WCX, like JSP, etc. Generic Servers do not and offer generic ways. In addition, there are generic server side scripting tools, like PHP, like CGI. Apache is one those generic web servers. Now, the first kind are commercial systems and speed and performance is generally better. The 2nd one traditionally were SLOWER at the scripting, CGI - in terms of loading it. PHP become of of Apaches much used generic scripting language but it had slow load times. That is where FASTCGI helped for PHP. The alternative for some Web server like custom APACHE servers instead of using FASTCGI? Do what the others are doing or done - EMBED IT! So its either ONE or the OTHER or just use it as a simple script map because the hardware is so much faster, it really doesn't matter any more. The only reason today to use an embedded "CGI" language is to help interface it with the main application server "DOM" or Data Model. Thats the beauty of a language like ASP abeit extremely high overhead - ever see how long it takes to load a ASP page? So the point here is your FOCUS on fastcgi is off base. That is not your answer - the answer is the actual code you write to handle the input and output. FASTCGI does not help you here. Making this code "FASTCGI" per se is to make it take INPUT immediately because its already loaded. 10 years ago, it helped, not today. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 16 Mar 2010 21:43
Peter Olcott wrote: > You continue to ignore my repeatedly stated requirement of > 4.0 GB of data (a deterministic finite automaton) that must > be loaded before execution can begin. If you ignore my > fundamental requirements you can't possibly provide good > advice. Heed my advice if you want to get somewhere. Its coming for FREE! If you keeping 4 GB loaded under a 24x7 loaded exe , then the rest of your system will suffer and you will get paging delays during idle times. That calls for a memory map design requirement. It has nothing to do with FASTCGI unless youy think this "FastCGI Language" you wish to use provides a library for you to automatically do this for you - it does not. Independent concepts. -- HLS |