Re: Quixote, QP, the future...?
"Mike Orr" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.quixote.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3/9/06, David Binger <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2006, at 10:30 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote: > > > On 3/9/2006 10:19 AM, Graham Fawcett wrote: > > > >> On 3/8/2006 8:59 PM, David Binger wrote: > >> > >>> There isn't any difference between QP and Quixote with respect > >>> to compatibility. The scgi server used by both uses passfd, which > >>> does not run on Windows. > >> > >> But the protocol doesn't require *forking*, right? It's an > >> implementation detail. Writing a less-efficient but stable-and- > >> semantically-equivalent SCGI implementation for win32 shouldn't be > >> a total show-stopper, just a fun weekend challenge for someone. :-). > > > > > > Oops, replace 'forking' with 'passfd'. Still true, n'est-ce pas? > > > Right. Any volunteers? This would be a synchronious server then or a multithreaded server? -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> ([email protected] address is semi-reliable) -- Mike Orr <[email protected]> ([email protected] address is semi-reliable)