W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > January to February 1996

Re: Server API's vs. CGI

From: Paul Everitt <paul@digicool.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 08:11:58 -0500
Message-Id: <310F6A9E.1D11@digicool.com>
To: dperraudin@arcadis.be
Cc: www-talk@w3.org, dclc@digicool.com
dperraudin@arcadis.be wrote:
> 
> I have been following the discussions regarding the various server API's that
> are avaialble.  What kind of performance improvement could one expect from
> using server API's rather than CGI scritps?

Using our API scripting stuff:
  http://www.digicool.com/releases/
the performance bump looks quite good.  _Preliminary_ testing showed a 250% 
drop in latency for similar operations.  Throughput should be even better, as 
the machine doesn't have new processes to deal with. Please note that there 
were a lot of caveats in the testing.

We are investigating some other techniques to give a significant bump, past 
reading an HTML file from disk.

> Is any group attempting to define
> a standard set of server API's?  Is there a FAQ available on this topic,
> or a website with more information.

I am trying to get caught up on all the current proposals, do some research, 
and field a draft.  Our assertion is to have a mechanism that is:

a) httpd-independent: differences between APIs should be, at a base level, 
hidden, but available for extensions
b) platform-independent: obviously, OS shouldn't matter
c) language-independent: big point here.  If it requires C, as current APIs 
do, then a vast audience is lost.  A language-neutral stance, as is CGI, 
would be best.
d) location-independent: partitioning operations across machines should be 
allowed, if possible
e) use of industry-standards and well-known technology

--Paul
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 1996 08:09:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:19 GMT