A time ago i have implemented a minimal fastcgi protocol and compare it
against various others implementations.
http://antoineb.github.io/blog/2015/06/02/basic-fastcgi-with-racket/
On 09/02/2017 10:12 PM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
dbohdan wrote on 09/02/2017 03:12 PM:
I rather like the SCGI protocol. It's a pity that it isn't as widely
supported as FastCGI, considering that it's much simpler to implement
(second only to plain old CGI), but still has a performance profile
similar to FastCGI's.
I mostly implemented FastCGI in Racket at one point, but then I read
about the FastCGI implementation in my target HTTP server having hard
bugs, so I abandoned that.
I also think there are faster ways to serve HTTP from Racket, but I'd
have to find funding to work through them.
And we have to keep in mind that, unlike benchmarks for LINPACK or
standard transaction processing, the real-world applications of HTTP
servers are messier. And also, I don't think many people have been
tuning for Web application benchmarks, unlike was once done for
LINPACK and TP. I think the Racket community has enough skill to make
a respectable showing in a benchmark tuning war, or in general
platform performance for real-world Web applications, but I'm not
aware of any funding going into that right now.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
