Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy?

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2008


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 101141
interpreted = N
texte = > What do you mean by a universal CGI version? Do you mean > one piece of software that runs on any computer platform? No, what I mean is to compile a WebDNA version for each major OS ... Right now WSC has (I think) 4 different versions of WebDNA, each specific to only one platform -- and by platform I mean not only a specific version of the OS but also a specific version of the HTTP server. Change either one and WebDNA (probably) won't run any more. But consider this: If only *one* version of WebDNA were compiled as a CGI for each major platform, it would run on many different versions of its own OS, and be compatible with virtually all HTTP servers developed for the same OS. In other words, a single "CGI" version compiled to run under Linux (for example) should run under almost *any* combination of Linux HTTP servers and Linux OS flavors/versions that you can put together! :) There is also CGI vs. FastCGI to consider ... CGI is ubiquitous -- it is everywhere -- so for ultimate compatibility CGI is best. But CGI is slower than FastCGI and more and more HTTP servers are fully compatible with FastCGI today, so does FastCGI make more sense for WebDNA? ----------------------------------------- The bottom line is that every additional version of WebDNA costs more time and money to develop and support, so a small company like WSC might be wise to eliminate as many different versions as possible. CGI or FastCGI seems to be the most practical way to make this possible. Sincerely, Ken Grome > Ken, > > What do you mean by a universal CGI version? Do you mean > one piece of software that runs on any computer platform? > > I have only seen the term "Universal CGI" used where a > script, typically Perl, can be installed on any platform. > > WebDNA is much different that a script. It is compiled > and runs as an application. To the best of my knowledge, > no one has ever made a single, compiled application that > runs, for example, on both Windows and Mac OSX. Unless > there is something I don't know about, I don't think > there is any such thing as a Universal application. Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Tim Benson 2008)
  2. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Govinda 2008)
  3. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("stephen" 2008)
  4. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Thierry Almy 2008)
  5. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Psi Prime, Matthew A Perosi " 2008)
  6. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Donovan Brooke 2008)
  7. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Stuart Tremain 2008)
  8. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Jesse Proudman 2008)
  9. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  10. RE: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Olin Lagon" 2008)
  11. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2008)
  12. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  13. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Stuart Tremain 2008)
  14. RE: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Meyers, David E." 2008)
  15. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  16. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Terry Wilson 2008)
  17. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Bob Minor 2008)
  18. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  19. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  20. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Stuart Tremain 2008)
  21. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  22. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Dan Strong" 2008)
  23. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Bob Minor 2008)
  24. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Terry Wilson 2008)
  25. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  26. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Patrick McCormick 2008)
  27. RE: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Terry Nair" 2008)
  28. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Patrick McCormick 2008)
  29. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2008)
  30. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Donovan Brooke 2008)
  31. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  32. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Bob Minor 2008)
  33. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  34. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Donovan Brooke 2008)
  35. RE: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Meyers, David E." 2008)
  36. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Donovan Brooke 2008)
  37. RE: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Olin Lagon" 2008)
  38. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Colin Sidwell 2008)
  39. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (christophe.billiottet@webdna.us 2008)
  40. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Colin Sidwell 2008)
  41. Re: [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? (Kenneth Grome 2008)
  42. [WebDNA] a major shift in strategy? ("Olin Lagon" 2008)
> What do you mean by a universal CGI version? Do you mean > one piece of software that runs on any computer platform? No, what I mean is to compile a WebDNA version for each major OS ... Right now WSC has (I think) 4 different versions of WebDNA, each specific to only one platform -- and by platform I mean not only a specific version of the OS but also a specific version of the HTTP server. Change either one and WebDNA (probably) won't run any more. But consider this: If only *one* version of WebDNA were compiled as a CGI for each major platform, it would run on many different versions of its own OS, and be compatible with virtually all HTTP servers developed for the same OS. In other words, a single "CGI" version compiled to run under Linux (for example) should run under almost *any* combination of Linux HTTP servers and Linux OS flavors/versions that you can put together! :) There is also CGI vs. FastCGI to consider ... CGI is ubiquitous -- it is everywhere -- so for ultimate compatibility CGI is best. But CGI is slower than FastCGI and more and more HTTP servers are fully compatible with FastCGI today, so does FastCGI make more sense for WebDNA? ----------------------------------------- The bottom line is that every additional version of WebDNA costs more time and money to develop and support, so a small company like WSC might be wise to eliminate as many different versions as possible. CGI or FastCGI seems to be the most practical way to make this possible. Sincerely, Ken Grome > Ken, > > What do you mean by a universal CGI version? Do you mean > one piece of software that runs on any computer platform? > > I have only seen the term "Universal CGI" used where a > script, typically Perl, can be installed on any platform. > > WebDNA is much different that a script. It is compiled > and runs as an application. To the best of my knowledge, > no one has ever made a single, compiled application that > runs, for example, on both Windows and Mac OSX. Unless > there is something I don't know about, I don't think > there is any such thing as a Universal application. Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

tcpconnect/tcpsend problem ... (2004) [WebDNA] AutoFill Drop Down Menu (2009) Help name our technology! (1997) OT: Poll Results (2002) adding shipping cost (1998) WCS Newbie question (1997) Closing Databases (1998) WC2b15 File Corruption (1997) Line Feed Character Appended (1998) WebCat2 several catalogs? (1997) WebCat2b15MacPlugIn - [authenticate] not [protect] (1997) problem serving foreign languages text (1997) [OT] PHP?MySQL Help Needed (2003) Not possible to unsubscribe (2007) How true is this? (1999) WCS Newbie question (1997) Almost a there but..bye bye NetCloak (1997) redirect with frames (1997) rounding onlu UP (2002) Make sure I understand this??? (1997)