clisp is not great for that sort of thing since it does not have
threads. It can, however, run as a regular cgi in that it can run
lisp code as a script.
thus spoke Jeff <········@gmail.com>:
> clisp is not great for that sort of thing since it does not have
> threads. It can, however, run as a regular cgi in that it can run
> lisp code as a script.
No, definitely no need to use threads to run as a FCGI app. clisp's
slow, but it's due to its byte-compiled nature.
--
Nawet świnka wejdzie na drzewo kiedy ją chwalą.
P� Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:40:11 +0200, skrev Khookie <··········@gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> Anyone with experience with clisp + fastcgi + apache? Positive /
> negative?
>
> Chris
Because you don't have threads in CLISP I would think regular CGI would be
the easiest to use.
CLISP is small and fast to load anyhow. Also the I/O is faster in CLISP
than other Lisp's so the code should show decent performance.
(Particularly compared to Huncentoot which uses Gray streams. To a lesser
degree for AServe in ACL which has a more efficient stream model. Not so
for portable AServe though.)
--------------
John Thingstad
On Apr 10, 1:21 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
> På Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:40:11 +0200, skrev Khookie <··········@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi
>
> > Anyone with experience with clisp + fastcgi + apache? Positive /
> > negative?
>
> > Chris
>
> Because you don't have threads in CLISP I would think regular CGI would be
> the easiest to use.
> CLISP is small and fast to load anyhow. Also the I/O is faster in CLISP
> than other Lisp's so the code should show decent performance.
> (Particularly compared to Huncentoot which uses Gray streams. To a lesser
> degree for AServe in ACL which has a more efficient stream model. Not so
> for portable AServe though.)
>
> --------------
> John Thingstad
well it seems clisp w/fcgi works, as per http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/fastcgi.html
what does threading has to do with it, especially from the webpage
perspective?
speed is a very minor consideration.
I just want a web server that is unquestionably stable (Apache), can
be scripted with lisp (clisp), is cross platform and doesn't cost an
arm & a leg.
Chris
Khookie wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:21 am, "John Thingstad" <·······@online.no> wrote:
>> P� Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:40:11 +0200, skrev Khookie <··········@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi
>>> Anyone with experience with clisp + fastcgi + apache? Positive /
>>> negative?
>>> Chris
>> Because you don't have threads in CLISP I would think regular CGI would be
>> the easiest to use.
>> CLISP is small and fast to load anyhow. Also the I/O is faster in CLISP
>> than other Lisp's so the code should show decent performance.
>> (Particularly compared to Huncentoot which uses Gray streams. To a lesser
>> degree for AServe in ACL which has a more efficient stream model. Not so
>> for portable AServe though.)
>>
>> --------------
>> John Thingstad
>
> well it seems clisp w/fcgi works, as per http://clisp.cons.org/impnotes/fastcgi.html
>
> what does threading has to do with it, especially from the webpage
> perspective?
>
> speed is a very minor consideration.
Many times you're right. Wire time commonly overrides
the time it takes for the CPU to respond.
If you've ever blocked on IO or a slow db query, however,
you might understand why a speedy lisp implementation
is of little consequence if you haven't taken these slower
situations into account.
> I just want a web server that is unquestionably stable (Apache), can
> be scripted with lisp (clisp), is cross platform and doesn't cost an
> arm & a leg.
>
> Chris