On Thursday 15 July 2004 16:02, Ed Lazor wrote:
> There are
> some benefits to having the cgi available though. For example, if you're
> at a unix prompt and need to process a file. Or, more commonly, if you
> want to execute scripts in cronjobs.
For these situations you would be better off usi
> -Original Message-
> When you say cgi vs. php, I'm going to assume you mean cgi versus apache
> module (correct me if I misunderstand). To be honest I don't know
> enough about the internals of the apache module to tell you why it's
> better for an apache server (would love it if someone
Bruce, you need to start new threads when you ask a new question... a
lot of people don't bother to check out a thread that's already got
responses, and it really makes more logical sense to start a new one
anyway (original post is below my response)...
When you say cgi vs. php, I'm going to as
That depends on the way you run PHP
If you run it a a server module, it may be more efficient.
If not, then it it less efficient than CGI, as the PHP script engine is a
CGI program itself, and has to compile and run your script after it gets
started itself.
"Spyproductions Support Team" <[EMAIL P
If you switch over, will you be able to port your database?
> Does PHP use less system resources than CGI on a server?
> I have a bulletin board which is incredibly active, but there is a PHP
> sister to it.
Again, when coding for a BB, I appreciate not being bound to work in /cgi-bin/
especial
5 matches
Mail list logo
