Greetings,

    I'm interested in using some new technology these days and one of the
great things I've found is D.  I'm very happy with the little I've used it.
However, I was hoping to use D in sort of a CGI like way as needed with a
webserver.  In the spirit of finding better technology, I'm hoping to switch
from Access to Firebird.  After a bit of searching, I have managed to get my
webserver, D, and Firebird all happily talking via ODBC.  However, I have
just a small bit of concern about performance after doing a few tests.  Not
that I necessarily need the performance, but that I want to do things in a
cool and efficient way.

    I'm pretty sure the "problem" is that I'm opening a new ODBC connection
each time the D .exe is run.  Unfortunately, I'm already used to how fast D
is and the thought of writing fast D cgi type stuff only to have it slowed
down by ODBC is annoying.  Now, I could use my webserver's internal database
scripting language or D as necessary (the webserver keeps connections open
it seems, instead of the D .exe which of course has no idea that it is being
run a lot and using the same connection) but I hate when I have to choose
between functionality and performance! ;)

    Is it unreasonable for me to use D, Firebird, and -ODBC- to connect them
together ...?  I confess I'm not a database expert, and I was wondering if
perhaps anyone had a more direct way of tying D and Firebird together or if
I should get over it and stick with what works!  All insights appreciated...
=)

Mark

I don't know what "Firebird" is, but have you done a google search for "fast cgi". I believe it's a variant of CGI where the CGI binary continues to run in between requests. It requires web server support (of course). I've never written one myself.

Regan

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:55:19 -0700, MARK DELANO <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>     I'm interested in using some new technology these days and one of the
> great things I've found is D.  I'm very happy with the little I've used it.
> However, I was hoping to use D in sort of a CGI like way as needed with a
> webserver.  In the spirit of finding better technology, I'm hoping to switch
> from Access to Firebird.  After a bit of searching, I have managed to get my
> webserver, D, and Firebird all happily talking via ODBC.  However, I have
> just a small bit of concern about performance after doing a few tests.  Not
> that I necessarily need the performance, but that I want to do things in a
> cool and efficient way.
>
>     I'm pretty sure the "problem" is that I'm opening a new ODBC connection
> each time the D .exe is run.  Unfortunately, I'm already used to how fast D
> is and the thought of writing fast D cgi type stuff only to have it slowed
> down by ODBC is annoying.  Now, I could use my webserver's internal database
> scripting language or D as necessary (the webserver keeps connections open
> it seems, instead of the D .exe which of course has no idea that it is being
> run a lot and using the same connection) but I hate when I have to choose
> between functionality and performance! ;)
>
>     Is it unreasonable for me to use D, Firebird, and -ODBC- to connect them
> together ...?  I confess I'm not a database expert, and I was wondering if
> perhaps anyone had a more direct way of tying D and Firebird together or if
> I should get over it and stick with what works!  All insights appreciated...
> =)
>
> Mark
>
>

By "Firebird" do you mean:
http://firebird.sourceforge.net/

Regan

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:55:19 -0700, MARK DELANO <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:

> Greetings,
>
>     I'm interested in using some new technology these days and one of the
> great things I've found is D.  I'm very happy with the little I've used it.
> However, I was hoping to use D in sort of a CGI like way as needed with a
> webserver.  In the spirit of finding better technology, I'm hoping to switch
> from Access to Firebird.  After a bit of searching, I have managed to get my
> webserver, D, and Firebird all happily talking via ODBC.  However, I have
> just a small bit of concern about performance after doing a few tests.  Not
> that I necessarily need the performance, but that I want to do things in a
> cool and efficient way.
>
>     I'm pretty sure the "problem" is that I'm opening a new ODBC connection
> each time the D .exe is run.  Unfortunately, I'm already used to how fast D
> is and the thought of writing fast D cgi type stuff only to have it slowed
> down by ODBC is annoying.  Now, I could use my webserver's internal database
> scripting language or D as necessary (the webserver keeps connections open
> it seems, instead of the D .exe which of course has no idea that it is being
> run a lot and using the same connection) but I hate when I have to choose
> between functionality and performance! ;)
>
>     Is it unreasonable for me to use D, Firebird, and -ODBC- to connect them
> together ...?  I confess I'm not a database expert, and I was wondering if
> perhaps anyone had a more direct way of tying D and Firebird together or if
> I should get over it and stick with what works!  All insights appreciated...
> =)
>
> Mark
>
>

That is an interesting solution... just keep the .exe running somehow.  And
yes, that is the Firebird that I mean. ;)
I realize part of my problem is that I'm using somewhat obscure software.
Thanks for your input!

Mark

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opstjdfelz23k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz...
>I don't know what "Firebird" is, but have you done a google search for "fast cgi". I believe it's a variant of CGI where the CGI binary continues to run in between requests. It requires web server support (of course). I've never written one myself.
>
> Regan