On 10/31/05, Nick Kew <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 31 October 2005 15:02, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > > > Use whatever protocol your > > > backend supports. > > > > I don't have an existing backend. > > In fact, I've got nothing at all yet for this project. > > So you could just write it as a module? No, because I'd like it to be (more) independent of the web server. Apache could be either multi-threaded or multi-processed, but my app would be single-threaded (epoll). Also, if my app crashes, the web server shouldn't crash. > > > > AJP looks usable, but I'm not sure if it's the right way. > > > > > > Apache's proxy framework is one option. DBD is another. > > > > The proxy framework would require my backend to export an HTTP interface? > > AJP is part of the proxy framework. As is HTTP to a backend. > > > Is DBD the Database-independent framework with driver? > > How would that be useful for this? > > I've no idea, because you didn't say what "this" was. This would be connecting to an 'application' server (if that's the right word). > > > > CGI is no option for performance reasons. > > > > > > Have you benchmarked it? Most backends (eg anything using servlets) > > > impose a far bigger overhead than CGI. > > > > No, but I'd like my application server to be persistent in order to > > use smart caching. > > Fair enough. That's what DBD is particularly good for. Or something > else based on a reslist pool of persistent connections. I'd like to cache (much) more than connections. > Perhaps I should just have answered "yes", as it's the only answer I could > safely infer to such a vague and ill-formed question. But I thought a longer > answer might have been helpful.
|