Re: [Chicken-users] awful as cgi or fcgi?

[Mario Domenech Goulart]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 07:01:37 -0700 matt welland <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 06:56 -0500, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 05:32:23 -0500 Mario Domenech Goulart <address@hidden> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:40:49 -0700 matt welland <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I read though the docs but didn't see mention of cgi, is it supported?
>> >
>> > Unfortunately not.  Awful runs on top of Spiffy.
>> 
>> OTOH, if you can run a server on other ports, you can bind awful/spiffy
>> to, say, port 8080 and use your front-end web server as a proxy for
>> awful/spiffy.
>> 
>> There's yet another approach, which is horrible and should probably not
>> even be mentioned, but should still work (considering you can run a
>> server and bind it to a port, and you _cannot_ use the front-end server
>> as a proxy, but the CGI interface is available): make a CGI program
>> which accesses awful giving it the request parameters (using the
>> http-client egg, for example) and reply back to the front-end server the
>> awful response.
>
> In your second awful scenario the (rather wonderful afaict) awful must
> still be a long running process, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Best wishes.
Mario
-- 
http://parenteses.org/mario