Hi, Neil-- On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > That pure-Racket SCGI module is used successfully for a large > workstation-ish Web app, and for several Web services (including data > ....
Great information! Thank you very much. I did a bit of further research, and it looks like I will indeed be using SCGI. I think I had some misconceptions, e.g. that there was no SCGI support in Nginx or uWSGI, which I normally use in production. That turns out not to be the case (I think SCGI support may have been added just recently to uWSGI, though). I had also heard that there was a performance disadvantage to using SCGI, but as best I can tell, that is more of a theoretical than real issue in most cases. Honestly, to be able to use your package. My passions and such expertise as I have are more toward the realm of user experience, but I sometimes get sucked into infrastructure hacking because in order to deliver great UX, you need a solid foundation. But whenever possible, I prefer to leave the low-level stuff to those who are better at it, as you seem to be. I do have a couple of questions/comments, though: * I was surprised at the number of dependencies pulled in when I installed the scgi package. It looks like most of them are there to support the template processor which is required by the example code. It's not a big deal, of course, but I wonder if the example really should be part of the package. * I would like to be able to use Unix sockets for my apps. I'm sure I can add that capability for my own use, but I might as well share that work with the community. Would you accept a patch for that? Or is there a particular reason your module only supports TCP? PS: I poked around your site a bit, and enjoyed the description of RackOut. Maybe I'll try it one of these days, though I don't watch a lot of DVDs. -- Matt Gushee ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
