On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> Not the server computer, but the FCGI application, yes.
>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>
> No, just the fastcgi app.
>
And what the "correct" way for do that? Kill the process?
Marcos Douglas
PS: I made IS
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Marcos Douglas wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
You can do this with CGI or FastCGI proxies. It does seem elaborate, though.
How often do you need to restart the FastCGI proxy ? Not often, I would
think.
I never used Fast
Marcos Douglas wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
You can do this with CGI or FastCGI proxies. It does seem elaborate, though.
How often do you need to restart the FastCGI proxy ? Not often, I would
think.
I never used FastCGI. I know it stay in me
Hi Michael,
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>
> You can do this with CGI or FastCGI proxies. It does seem elaborate, though.
> How often do you need to restart the FastCGI proxy ? Not often, I would
> think.
I never used FastCGI. I know it stay in memory. So, if I nee
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 23:37, Marcos Douglas wrote:
My only doubt is: why to use CGI proxy, not a FCGI?
The main purpose of CGI proxy existence is to provide solution for some
environments where FCGI
On 26 Mei 2010, at 24:12, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> If the environment allows use FCGI, you would not CGI gateway?
No, because I WANT to use those bonuses. However, by able to use the bonuses,
you can't negate the main purpose of its existence.
-Bee-
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> On 25 Mei 2010, at 23:37, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> My only doubt is: why to use CGI proxy, not a FCGI?
>
> The main purpose of CGI proxy existence is to provide solution for some
> environments where FCGI setup isn't possible. The other advant
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> Seems a little redundant to me to have one FCGI proxying for another FCGI
> and its not part of the standard either. Lots of sites are using FCGI out
> there with the standard single FCGI server setup.
>
> If you're putting logic into the pr
On 25 Mei 2010, at 23:37, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> My only doubt is: why to use CGI proxy, not a FCGI?
The main purpose of CGI proxy existence is to provide solution for some
environments where FCGI setup isn't possible. The other advantages are bonuses.
;)
-Bee-
_
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
Personally, I don't see a problem with the static nature of a
apache_mod,ISAPI if you're doing your debugging locally on an embedded
server first and then deploying your executable (apache, isapi, fcgi) later.
That woul
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't see a problem with the static nature of a
> apache_mod,ISAPI if you're doing your debugging locally on an embedded
> server first and then deploying your executable (apache, isapi, fcgi) later.
> That would reduce the fr
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> Ok, Marcos... let's take a look at the logic of memory allocation. Everytime
> an app need memory, it requests it to the OS. So, OS always knows which part
> of memory belongs to what app. Once the app is terminated, OS will release
> all the
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 14:06, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I have never looked at FastCGI before, but what you are descibing is
exactly what I wanted to do with CGI. Create a GUI or Service/Daemon
application (application server) t
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> On 25 Mei 2010, at 14:06, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
>> I have never looked at FastCGI before, but what you are descibing is
>> exactly what I wanted to do with CGI. Create a GUI or Service/Daemon
>> application (application server) that the CGI
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 6:07 PM, José Mejuto wrote:
> Hello FPC-Pascal,
>
> Monday, May 24, 2010, 8:43:08 PM, you wrote:
>
> MD> Okay, but if there is not memory leaks...
> MD> I ever free my objects! But I did not know about no memory leaks in
> MD> CGI programs...
>
> There are no memory leaks o
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 20:31, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
But maybe the new garbage collector no longer has the problem; in that case,
my remarks are void.
I hope so. I haven't try the latest SVN either. :D
Tell him he should also get rid of the one-thread
On 25 Mei 2010, at 20:31, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> But maybe the new garbage collector no longer has the problem; in that case,
> my remarks are void.
I hope so. I haven't try the latest SVN either. :D
> Tell him he should also get rid of the one-thread-per-session
> model, because it is si
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 17:36, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Here I can reliably reproduce the memory corruption. It crashes the output
regularly. (with random use, it happens 10-15 times a day, in a test
enviromnent).
Would you share the test code?
Unfortuna
On 25 Mei 2010, at 17:36, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Here I can reliably reproduce the memory corruption. It crashes the output
> regularly. (with random use, it happens 10-15 times a day, in a test
> enviromnent).
Would you share the test code?
> The bug is in the garbage collector, which at
i dont have a win64 machine to test this...
2010/5/25 Bee Jay :
>
> On 25 Mei 2010, at 15:55, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>> The CGI gateway is on my todo list, as you know.
>
> Now everybody knows. ;)
>
>> Obviously. I think ExtPascal is promising, but sadly suffers from some major
>> design fla
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 15:55, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The CGI gateway is on my todo list, as you know.
Now everybody knows. ;)
Obviously. I think ExtPascal is promising, but sadly suffers from some major
design flaws (garbage collect, thread model); wh
On 25 Mei 2010, at 15:55, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> The CGI gateway is on my todo list, as you know.
Now everybody knows. ;)
> Obviously. I think ExtPascal is promising, but sadly suffers from some major
> design flaws (garbage collect, thread model); which prevent me from
> using it: they c
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 15:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Seems like Graeme is not the only one who is not always listening:
Hahahaha... I know. :D When you point a finger, there are three fingers
pointing back at you! ;)
I said several times before, Fast
On 25 Mei 2010, at 15:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Seems like Graeme is not the only one who is not always listening:
Hahahaha... I know. :D When you point a finger, there are three fingers
pointing back at you! ;)
> I said several times before, FastCGI exists since a long time in Free Pas
Op 2010-05-25 10:12, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
>
> All in all, I see very little reason for using ExtPascal - if you are
> interested only in the FastCGI code.
At least I knew about FastCGI support included in Free Pascal, and that was
going to be the first thing I evaluate when I get to
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Bee Jay wrote:
On 25 Mei 2010, at 14:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
My major concern is vendor lock-in. Something we want to avoid at all costs
- we have been burnt too many times. So I'll stay away from ExtPascal
because that requires ExtJS which is a commercial product
On 25 Mei 2010, at 01:43, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé
> wrote:
>> Marcos, nobody is saying that you don't have to destroy instances when
>> programming CGI apps.
>
> Okay, but if there is not memory leaks...
> I ever free my objects! But I did not
Op 2010-05-25 09:51, Bee Jay het geskryf:
> should be able to use the FCGI part only without need to bother with the
> ExtJS part. However, the refactoring result isn't yet fully tested and
> it might leave some coupled code behind.
Good to know, thanks. I'll then take a look at ExtPascal closer t
On 25 Mei 2010, at 14:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> My major concern is vendor lock-in. Something we want to avoid at all costs
> - we have been burnt too many times. So I'll stay away from ExtPascal
> because that requires ExtJS which is a commercial product you have to
> purchase (starting at
Op 2010-05-25 09:14, Bee Jay het geskryf:
>
> ExtPascal had been using this technique since about two years ago! I
> told you about this more than once, but you never listen to me. ;) :D
:-) I send lots of messages (too many in fact), so couldn't remember who
told me that. The other thing was th
On 25 Mei 2010, at 14:06, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> I have never looked at FastCGI before, but what you are descibing is
> exactly what I wanted to do with CGI. Create a GUI or Service/Daemon
> application (application server) that the CGI apps talks to. The
> application server would setup the
On 25 Mei 2010, at 11:32, Bee Jay wrote:
> Oh, did I mention live debugging? ;)
Oh, did I mention that FCGI is an open standardized protocol that is supported
by virtually any web servers? That means you could avoid vendor technology
locked-in, such as Apache mod or IIS ISAPI. ;)
-Bee-
_
Op 2010-05-24 18:30, Bee Jay het geskryf:
>
> The CGI app
> (lightweight) will run the ascociated FCGI app (the true app) if it's
> not yet running. If it's already running, the CGI app acts as request
> proxy for the FCGI app.
I have never looked at FastCGI before, but what you are descibing is
Op 2010-05-24 18:02, Leonardo M. Ramé het geskryf:
> Aldo, I know it has templates, the problem I'm facing now is in Windows
> Seven 64bits, It can't read environment/GET/POST vars, so the GetVar
> function doesn't return anything. That's why I had to look elsewere.
Does this only occur in Win7 (6
On 25 Mei 2010, at 11:29, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> On 25 Mei 2010, at 02:15, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you need verification? That information is readily available on
>>> ExtPascal's wiki.
>>>
>>> http://code.google.com/p/extpasc
On 25 Mei 2010, at 02:15, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>>
>> Why do you need verification? That information is readily available on
>> ExtPascal's wiki.
>>
>> http://code.google.com/p/extpascal/wiki/GettingStarted
>
> Bee said something and Leon
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Monday, May 24, 2010, 8:43:08 PM, you wrote:
MD> Okay, but if there is not memory leaks...
MD> I ever free my objects! But I did not know about no memory leaks in
MD> CGI programs...
There are no memory leaks once the program finishes, the OS releases
all requested memory block
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
wrote:
>
> Yes, it is true for Windows, Linux, Mac, plus any other decent OS.
>
> It is however considered good practice to clean up. It's more or less
> like commenting. Sure you can write a program without comments and it
> will run ju
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> ...and at the end, no memory leaks?
>
> This is true about Desktop (Win/Linux) apps too?
Yes, it is true for Windows, Linux, Mac, plus any other decent OS.
It is however considered good practice to clean up. It's more or less
like commenti
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> No offense, I was just curious.
Okay, don't worry :)
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> Sorry, "way" of how it works.
>
When I said: "...and at the end, no memory leaks?" I talked serious!
For me, all pointers that
--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> From: Graeme Geldenhuys
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 4:31 PM
> On 24 May 2010 18:02, Leonardo M.
> Ramé wr
On 24 May 2010 18:02, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
> Aldo, I know it has templates, the problem I'm facing now is in Windows Seven
> 64bits,
> It can't read environment/GET/POST vars, so the GetVar function doesn't return
> anything. That's why I had to look elsewere.
Well, you have the code, so why
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
LOL. Well, you should always manage your resources regardless, though I
think you question was tongue in cheek.
I was talking more about the model of how it works.
Sorry... what do you mean "model of how it works"?
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
Why do you need verification? That information is readily available on
ExtPascal's wiki.
http://code.google.com/p/extpascal/wiki/GettingStarted
I do not need verification.
Bee said something and Leonardo responded...
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> Why do you need verification? That information is readily available on
> ExtPascal's wiki.
>
> http://code.google.com/p/extpascal/wiki/GettingStarted
I do not need verification.
Bee said something and Leonardo responded... I want know what
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> LOL. Well, you should always manage your resources regardless, though I
> think you question was tongue in cheek.
>
> I was talking more about the model of how it works.
Sorry... what do you mean "model of how it works"?
Marcos Douglas
__
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
Yes, but some times your FCGI app must run on one of those cheap shared
hostings where you can't touch the Apache's httpd.conf file to configure the
FCGI application. That's why the CGI proxy/gateway approach is us
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
It is more or less a console application.
1. Request come in.
2. CGI Application starts and handles request through stdin/stdout.
3. CGI Application shuts down and release its resources.
One application is started and t
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
>
> Yes, but some times your FCGI app must run on one of those cheap shared
> hostings where you can't touch the Apache's httpd.conf file to configure the
> FCGI application. That's why the CGI proxy/gateway approach is used in some
> cas
--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> From: Marcos Douglas
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:39 PM
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Bee
> Jay
> wro
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
>
> Marcos, nobody is saying that you don't have to destroy instances when
> programming CGI apps.
>
Okay, but if there is not memory leaks...
I ever free my objects! But I did not know about no memory leaks in
CGI programs...
Marcos Dou
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> Because FCGI app is the true worker app. CGI proxy is lightweight app. It
> does nothing but redirecting incoming request and outgoing response, aka
> proxy. Since it's lightweight, the CGI penalty can be ignored.
>
>> A FCGI lightweight app wo
--- On Mon, 5/24/10, ABorka wrote:
> From: ABorka
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:24 PM
> On 5/24/2010 09:52, Leonardo M. Ramé
> wrote:
> > -
--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> From: Marcos Douglas
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:20 PM
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Lee
> Jenkins
> wr
On 5/24/2010 09:52, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
-- On Mon, 5/24/10, ABorka wrote:
From: ABorka
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 1:48 PM
On 5/24/2010 09:02, Leonardo M. Ramé
wrote:
Aldo, I k
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Lee Jenkins wrote:
>
> It is more or less a console application.
>
> 1. Request come in.
> 2. CGI Application starts and handles request through stdin/stdout.
> 3. CGI Application shuts down and release its resources.
>
> One application is started and then shutdow
On 25 Mei 2010, at 24:10, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> "If it's already running, the CGI app acts as request proxy for the FCGI app"
> Would not the oposite?
Because FCGI app is the true worker app. CGI proxy is lightweight app. It does
nothing but redirecting incoming request and outgoing response,
Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
wrote:
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
Don't worry about memory leaks?! But if a do not freed an object e.g.
this is continues in memory, even after app ends.
No, it doesn't continue in
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Bee Jay wrote:
>
> That's why I like the CGI gateway mechanism from ExtPascal. The CGI app
> (lightweight) will run the ascociated FCGI app (the true app) if it's not yet
> running. If it's already running, the CGI app acts as request proxy for the
> FCGI app. A
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>> Don't worry about memory leaks?! But if a do not freed an object e.g.
>> this is continues in memory, even after app ends.
>
> No, it doesn't continue in memory.
In an
-- On Mon, 5/24/10, ABorka wrote:
> From: ABorka
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 1:48 PM
> On 5/24/2010 09:02, Leonardo M. Ramé
> wrote:
> > Aldo, I know
On 5/24/2010 09:02, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
Aldo, I know it has templates, the problem I'm facing now is in Windows Seven
64bits, It can't read environment/GET/POST vars, so the GetVar function doesn't
return anything. That's why I had to look elsewere.
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blo
On 24 Mei 2010, at 22:13, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
> With CGI you have one advantage over Apache Modules or Embedded web servers,
> as far as your "actions" do their work without errors, you don't have to
> worry about possible memory leaks related to concurrency problems or threads
> or anythin
/24/10, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote:
> From: Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:54 PM
> Powtils is not unmantained, its just
>
Powtils is not unmantained, its just slow development.
Powutils has parametrized templates, it just dont have documentation
for the latest version (I developed the template system myself).
2010/5/24 Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho :
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>> Don't w
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> Don't worry about memory leaks?! But if a do not freed an object e.g.
> this is continues in memory, even after app ends.
No, it doesn't continue in memory.
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fp
Hi Leonardo,
Thanks for reply.
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
>
> I'll use it in production. With CGI you have one advantage over Apache
> Modules or Embedded web servers, as far as your "actions" do their work
> without errors, you don't have to worry about possible
--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> From: Marcos Douglas
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 12:04 PM
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:51 AM,
> Leonardo
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
> Thanks Leledumbo, FreeSpider worked perfectly, I did some tests of GET/POST
> vars and Templates, and it fits my needs wonderfully.
>
> I also tried fpWeb, but it has some problems (EWriteError : Stream write
> error) on Windows Seven 6
r a simple CGI program. Anyway, I'll use it for this project.
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com
--- On Mon, 5/24/10, leledumbo wrote:
> From: leledumbo
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Powtils Apache and Windows Seven 64bits
> To: fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> Da
Powtils seems to be ignored by the author for a couple of years, use fpWeb or
FreeSpider instead. Both are maintained and quite advanced (fpWeb:
parameterized templates, FreeSpider: smart module loading), and what you
need: both have working file upload example.
--
View this message in context:
Hi, after struggling half a day with fpWeb on Windows Seven 64bits and Apache
2.2.15, I decided to try with Powtils, but it seems to both have problems on
this platform.
My Powtils CGI program apparently runs fine, but when I try to access Get, Post
or Env vars they are empty.
This simple exam
72 matches
Mail list logo
