W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Common Gateway Interface

From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 19:35:25 -0400
Message-Id: <v0310280dafb3c2cd0390@[128.52.39.15]>
To: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Cc: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@hotmail.com>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
At 5:24 PM -0400 5/29/97, Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Why is there absolutely no mention of the CGI interaction between the HTTP 
>> daemon and the CGI programs? Surely this standard should specify which peices> the header are made available to CGI programs and how they are made available
>
>
>Because CGI is not an IETF spec, it was a hack put together by Ari
>Luotenen of CERN and Rob McCool at NCSA to allow people to plug
>stuff into both their servers. While their Netscape server supports
>CGI the prefered way to plug in a module is via NSAPI which is 
>much more efficient because it does not spawn a process for each
>transaction.
>
>CGI is completely inappropriate to standardize in the IETF. It is
>operating system specific and its an API and not a protocol. The
>W3C might have an interest in producing a spec but I would not
>count on it. It might be nice to have a document readily available 
>with Ari and Rob's names on it but it really isn't a technology
>that should be considered leading edge at this point. NSAPI and 
>ISAPI have replaced it, there are many, many such APIs and there
>is no particular reason to consider CGI as a special case even
>if popular Web books have "CGI" on the cover in letters three 
>inch high.

Actually, the Java server API or the earlier, and more general, the cl-http API are cleverer than
the ns or ms APIs
Received on Thursday, 29 May 1997 16:42:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:43 EDT