47 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
47 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
|
From: richard at folwell.com (Richard Folwell)
|
||
|
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:01:32 GMT
|
||
|
Subject: stupid Win-CGI getting started question
|
||
|
Message-ID: <01BE8851.3B6BED90.richard@folwell.com>
|
||
|
Content-Length: 1800
|
||
|
X-UID: 209
|
||
|
|
||
|
On 14 April 1999 19:45, bill_seitz at my-dejanews.com
|
||
|
[SMTP:bill_seitz at my-dejanews.com] wrote:
|
||
|
> So nobody can run .py files as CGI?
|
||
|
>
|
||
|
> Is this a known problem? What's its scope? Only Netscape/NT? What about IIS?
|
||
|
|
||
|
It was certainly possible to run .py files as CGI under IIS 2. I did not need
|
||
|
to upgrade that system, so cannot be sure about later versions of IIS, but
|
||
|
would find it extremely hard to believe that anyone would remove the ability to
|
||
|
use an abitrary external program to provide a CGI resource to a web server from
|
||
|
a mainstream web server.
|
||
|
|
||
|
I do remember seeing a (at least one, maybe more) posting about differences in
|
||
|
configuring IIS2/3/4 w.r.t. external programs (e.g. stuff which worked fine
|
||
|
under IIS2/3 stopped working when the server was upgraded to version 4).
|
||
|
|
||
|
The problem has to be along these lines. The CGI spec (I understand) simply
|
||
|
requires programs/languages that can handle standard input (stdin) and produce
|
||
|
standard output (stdout).
|
||
|
|
||
|
> I'm trying to keep my code generic enough that it can be moved to other
|
||
|
> platforms/servers down the road (which is why I haven't been looking at nsapy
|
||
|
> or Medusa or ZopeHTTP...), so I don't want to work around a problem now and
|
||
|
> just have it hit me again later. I'd like to understand the nature of the
|
||
|
> problem enough to evaluate alternative solutions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
I have done some work with ISAPI (the Microsoft equivalent to NSAPY). There
|
||
|
are performance gains with these approaches, but you definitely lock yourself
|
||
|
into a single web server supplier (unless someone has come up with a neat way
|
||
|
of producing cross-platform support for these plug-ins). CGI has the big
|
||
|
advantage that it is supported by all non-toy web servers, and the actual code
|
||
|
should not need changing between different web servers.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Richard
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|