Quixote, QP, the future...?

On 3/9/06, David Binger <dbingermems-exchange.org>
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 <sluggostergmail.com>
(msooz.net address is semi-reliable)


--
Mike Orr <sluggostergmail.com>
(msooz.net address is semi-reliable)
_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
Quixote-usersmems-exchange.org
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixo
te-users

On Mar 9, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Mike Orr wrote:

> On 3/9/06, David Binger <dbingermems-exchange.org> 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?

The server in qp dispatches connections to a pool of
subprocesses,
using exactly the same pattern as Quixote's scgi server.
If there is a way to get similar behavior on Windows, that
would
be my personal preference.

I think we could make QP work with a multithreaded server if
we
modify the set_publisher()/get_publisher() functions to
store
and maintain a separate Publisher instance for each thread.

I think I'll go ahead and do that anyway to make it easier
to try.

It would also be cool if we could make QP and Durus
twisted-friendly.
Would that be difficult?




_______________________________________________
Quixote-users mailing list
Quixote-usersmems-exchange.org
http://mail.mems-exchange.org/mailman/listinfo/quixo
te-users