Nicholas Clark wrote:
Does a CGI always run with a socket as STDOUT?
(in that running with a CGI-faked ENV as part of a pipe in a
cron job is going to look awfuly like being run from a web
server)
Or will there be servers that run the CGI with the output to
a pipe and in turn pump that
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:20:49 +0100
Newton, Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, the Xitami web server (at least on Win32 systems) doesn't output any of
the CGI's output to the client until the CGI is done, so perhaps it
implements CGI with STDOUT directed to a file, which it then reads -- in
Nicholas Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on 15 January 2002 21:42:
I believe that ithreads were experimental in 5.6
(in that there was no perl level interface to make a thread, but the
underlying ithreads mechanism is what is used to fake fork() on Windows)
Fake fork() sounds useful
Ivor Williams writes:
Nicholas Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on 15 January 2002 21:42:
I believe that ithreads were experimental in 5.6
(in that there was no perl level interface to make a thread, but the
underlying ithreads mechanism is what is used to fake fork() on
Sam Vilain wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:20:49 +0100
Newton, Philip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, the Xitami web server (at least on Win32 systems)
doesn't output any of the CGI's output to the client
until the CGI is done, so perhaps it implements CGI
with STDOUT directed to a file
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 07:03, Newton, Philip wrote:
AFAIK, Apache manages to pass content along to the client as soon as it
receives it from the CGI program, even on Win32.
Nope, at least not yet. It's been going to be fixed in the next release
for quite a while.
2.0 though. Yep, it'll be
I know a few people have been muttering about technical meetings, and I
did say it was 'provisionally' on the 17th. However, due to me being
rubbish at this leadership lark, the meeting's only just getting
finalised. So, barring any last minute problems (sorry, Dave [0], I
couldn't bring myself
i was just fooling about with WWW::Search::Scraper::Google, and come
across odd problems. am i just having late-night code blindness, and does
anyone here know that source tree well? i've spent a lot of the last
couple of hours trailing through WWW::Search* trying to see what's going
wrong.
