Re: metacard for CGI
Subject: metacard for CGI Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am putting together some documentation regarding the use of metatalk/rev for CGI scripts and I wanted to ask the list for some feedback: -how many of you are currently using metatalk/rev for CGI me for one... -the context(tasks performed) it is being used as well as the environment (production/tests/platform) I run MC in combination with Valentina database engine under Mac OS 9.2 to provide access to a few online (private) databases and programmatically produce web pages (for public use) from some of them. Databases contain course information and personnel data. -the approximate amount of traffic handled by the CGIs Relatively small and comes in peaks when there are update deadlines. At present, there are less than 50 potential users but this will change next semester when class and exam signups is added. -your location (if this is sensitive in any way, please send it to me off the list, I only need this info for statistics) University of Postdam with some 12000 students but I am serving only one of the departments. -if any of you are using other script languages for CGI (PHP, ASP, etc.) I'd appreciate some feedback as to how does metatalk/rev compare in terms of productivity/performance with the other language(s) I used to script CGIs in AppleScript and looked into RB as alternative to MC. MC is my choice for the task as I need flexibility in handling text, easy access to the database, and being able to produce quickly decent interfaces for my own use. AS is too slow and inflexible. RB would be faster but it falls behind on other points. -the main disadvantage you see in using metatalk/rev for CGI scripting *besides some difficulty with debugging* Debugging CGIs in any language is a pain. That is a nature of that software. I think the biggest disadvantage of MC is in performance limitations, but that comes to play only for more heavily used sites. Robert ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: metacard for CGI
Andu wrote: -the main disadvantage you see in using metatalk/rev for CGI scripting *besides some difficulty with debugging* As someone who took a look at MC and decided to go with ASP..here are some things that I would really miss if I went back to MC (in the order of importance). Everything that I mention can (is) be done using cmc.exe - but its a pain. 1. Request.Form / Request.QueryString These allow me to grab the form data by name and any items in the query string. No parsing necessary. Possible Syntax: http://www.metacard.com?userid=10101 Request_QueryString(user_id) would return 10101 Similarly, if you posted the data instead of putting it in the URL.. Request_Form(user_id) would return 10101 If these got separated far, far away from the read from stdin, you could write a debugger far, far easier by simply simulating the input and output. 2. Server Variables Is it a POST, GET, who from.. Possible Syntax: Request_ServerVariables(REQUEST_METHOD) 3. Session Variables Not really necessary if MC is acting as a server to other MC clients, but very necessary for any kind of web applications that have more than one page -- using hidden form elements is the other option, but a pain. Session variables stay alive between pages - but are only available to the person who started the session. Possible Syntax: Session_Set(variable_name,10101) put Session_Get(variable_name) would return 10101 4. ODBC Sure, MC can be a decent database - but its really nice to be able to do the database connections. All I really need is a connection, a way to execute queries, and a table of the outputs. Simple enough ;) 4. XML support, though I'm still whacking away at an xml_lib, so that might be a non-issue. Hope this helps. -ml -- ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: metacard for CGI
Mark Luetzelschwab wrote: Andu wrote: -the main disadvantage you see in using metatalk/rev for CGI scripting *besides some difficulty with debugging* As someone who took a look at MC and decided to go with ASP..here are some things that I would really miss if I went back to MC (in the order of importance). Everything that I mention can (is) be done using cmc.exe - but its a pain. 1. Request.Form / Request.QueryString These allow me to grab the form data by name and any items in the query string. No parsing necessary. Possible Syntax: http://www.metacard.com?userid=10101 Request_QueryString(user_id) would return 10101 Similarly, if you posted the data instead of putting it in the URL.. Request_Form(user_id) would return 10101 If these got separated far, far away from the read from stdin, you could write a debugger far, far easier by simply simulating the input and output. 2. Server Variables Is it a POST, GET, who from.. Possible Syntax: Request_ServerVariables(REQUEST_METHOD) 3. Session Variables Not really necessary if MC is acting as a server to other MC clients, but very necessary for any kind of web applications that have more than one page -- using hidden form elements is the other option, but a pain. Session variables stay alive between pages - but are only available to the person who started the session. Possible Syntax: Session_Set(variable_name,10101) put Session_Get(variable_name) would return 10101 4. ODBC Sure, MC can be a decent database - but its really nice to be able to do the database connections. All I really need is a connection, a way to execute queries, and a table of the outputs. Simple enough ;) 4. XML support, though I'm still whacking away at an xml_lib, so that might be a non-issue. Hope this helps. Thanks. All good points with few exceptions. Not to forget that ASP, PHP were created exclusively for web use and being able to run as modules to the server gives them some of the advantages you mention above. I'm more familiar with PHP which indeed has a whole bunch of built in functions that would require, at best, many lines of code in Metacard to achieve the same results. As usual, the key to adding more functionality (and popularity) to Metacard cgis is to have a significant number of people request those features which make ASP and PHP the better choice besides the language itself. Most important is probably a Metacard module for the main web servers. -ml -- ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard -- Regards, Andu Novac ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: metacard for CGI
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:28:39 -0500 From: andu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: metacard for CGI Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am putting together some documentation regarding the use of metatalk/rev for CGI scripts and I wanted to ask the list for some feedback: -how many of you are currently using metatalk/rev for CGI -the context(tasks performed) it is being used as well as the environment (production/tests/platform) -the approximate amount of traffic handled by the CGIs -your location (if this is sensitive in any way, please send it to me off the list, I only need this info for statistics) -if any of you are using other script languages for CGI (PHP, ASP, etc.) I'd appreciate some feedback as to how does metatalk/rev compare in terms of productivity/performance with the other language(s) -the main disadvantage you see in using metatalk/rev for CGI scripting *besides some difficulty with debugging* Hi Andu I've just started to develop private projects using cmc.exe a combination of ASP so I would definately appreciate some documentation. What I have working so far (on win xp pro iis) is working fine but I haven't tried anything tricky yet.. like calling a mc stack that accesses a valentina db regards alex ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: metacard for CGI
Terry Judd wrote: And debugging is a pain in the butt. :) Yes, we should get at least a line/word number in an error message but since the number of Metacard/CGI users is 4 so far, I don't expect we can dare ask for features. I think you might find that there are a lot more than 4 if some of these issues were sorted out up front. I'm all for it, speak up your mind and... who knows. Well the main issue for me is good documentation and a diverse selection of working examples. I need to be able to get up to speed (and be productive) quickly and both of these would help no end. Cheers, Terry... -- ___ Dr Terry Judd Lecturer in Instructional Design / Multimedia Developer Biomedical Multimedia Unit Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry Health Sciences The University of Melbourne Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 03 9344 0187 Fax: 03 9344 4998 ___ ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
Re: metacard for CGI
Alex Shaw wrote: Hi Andu I've just started to develop private projects using cmc.exe a combination of ASP so I would definately appreciate some documentation. What I have working so far (on win xp pro iis) is working fine but I haven't tried anything tricky yet.. like calling a mc stack that accesses a valentina db It was not my intention to start a How-To Metacard/Rev for cgi scripting but rather to document the actual usage of the engine for this purpose and get a feel for what others who do cgi work with MC think about it. My motivation was selfish: if I promote MC to my clients for their web applications I need to have answers for a lot of questions. That being said, I would definitely enjoy sharing and learning on this subject, my only reservation, as in the past, is that there isn't much to talk about about cgi scripting which would be any different from general MC scripting. As it was mentioned earlier, a trick to avoid the hardship of debugging is to do the script in a stack (you can use the debugger and error messages) and just replace the handler when you copy it to the cgi script. Calling a stack from a script is done with start using theStack and using the result from the handler called in the stack but I didn't try using externals. I did however use other programs (database) with the shell() function. In terms of recommendations I think Linux is the best platform for this kind of stuff followed by OS X/Darwin and NT family. MacOS up to 9.x is just for wasting time with appleEvents. I also recommend using, for example Sendmail or equivalent and shell() for email as opposed to MC's sockets in combination with wait for messages for reasons of reliability not to mention that with a line of code you are done. Maybe I should do a How-To, after all...;-) Time is a problem. regards alex ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard -- Regards, Andu Novac ___ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
