July 07, 2005
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


July 07, 2005
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
>
>

July 07, 2005
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
>
>

July 07, 2005
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


Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home