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

[matt welland]

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?

> That'd be totally awful, although awful would be just part of the whole
> "solution".
> 
> 
> Best wishes.
> Mario