>The comments regarding applets have nothing to do with C or JNI. Again I'm
>trying to say that applets do not make sense in the context of HTML. It's
>not Java's fault, it's just how things are.
I don't see how this is true. HTTP is supposed to be a stateless, object-
oriented protocol which
Chris Huebsch wrote:
> AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads.
Are you sure you want to make such a generalization about Unix?
I've got a couple of books that cover threads programming on Solaris.
Is there something "unreal" about Solaris ( or UnixWare ) threads?
--
wYRd.:|:[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Nathan Meyers wrote:
> Whoa... how did this discussion suddenly become religious?
Whenever you mention a foreign language in a mailing list devoted to a
certain language, it *always* becomes religious.
Brett W. McCoy
http:/
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 10:37:53AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 09:51:51AM +0100, Chris Huebsch wrote:
>
> I know that Java is a VM, bytecode, etc. What I'm trying to say is that
> this is irrelevant -- HTML and the Web are simply the wrong paradigm for
> trying to deploy
You are correct, Alex. Both Solaris and Linux support "real" threads, as do
several other Unix OSs. We can go into detail if need be, but I hope we can
spare the list that :-)
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 01:32:38PM +0300, Alex Romadinoff wrote:
> >AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads. For new r
On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 09:51:51AM +0100, Chris Huebsch wrote:
> The first is a "non-java-at-all" Server. It has to create a new process
> when a request arives. Where? The system is almost at the limit? It is
NO.
I keep saying this and apparently nobody is listening.
Let me give you URLs then
Wht?
Alex Romadinoff wrote:
>
> >AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads. For new requests a new instance
>
> ?
> >of the CGI is created with fork() or something like that? Now imagine a
> >server with a load
>AFAIK unix doesn't support real threads. For new requests a new instance
?
>of the CGI is created with fork() or something like that? Now imagine a
>server with a load around 99%.
Are you sure ?
What about 'clone
Hello,
let me contribute a word or two to this discussion...
John Goerzen wrote:
>
> This is not really the point. The point is that for a heavily-loaded
> server, even a small difference in performance can make a tremendous
> difference in the system -- possibly the difference between running
Whoa... how did this discussion suddenly become religious?
I daresay the readership of this group is here because they see a future
for Java beyond its current problems. As a fan of both Java and Perl, I
have absolutely no need to resolve the which-is-faster-and-better
question once and for all;
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 08:03:26PM -0500, Daniel W. Dulitz x108 wrote:
> John, you wonder about the technical advantages of Java. Java is all
> about balancing easy to write and easy to read code against runtime
> performance. Think C versus assembly language. And the real question
> is, "Is t
Kevin Hester writes:
> John Goerzen writes:
> > I would certainly not use Java for CGI. libapache-mod-perl, FastCGI, etc.
> > if necessary.
>
> I'd definitely encourage anyone to use servlets with wild abandon. So easy
> and clean - I haven't had to write CGI cruft in over a year. In exchange
12 matches
Mail list logo
