perl-modperl mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Beamish" <tal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Forking to an interactive program under mod_perl
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:53:17 GMT
On 12/15/06, Jonathan Vanasco <jvanasco@2xlp.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> > However, you could also avoid the problem by running only one
> > apache process.
>
> That line got me thinking...
>
> I wouldn't do one apache process -- i'd do an entirely new server.
>
> Make another mod_perl server (or use a twisted python server, cos its
> good for stuff like that ) that  ONLY handles ghostscript.  Instead
> of talking sockets like in the  other  post, it speaks via http.  It
> would be like having a second daemon work on things-- except its not
> really a daemon but a gs dedicated mp server.
>
> Your main server works  as-is.   Instead of opening a ghostscript
> file, it does  a URL get to tell the other server 'start a new
> session'.  Handle everything with URL  commands - why? because  its
> way easier than sockets and you can test it using a normal web browser.
>
> The ghostscript-only server is single  process (no children)-- so you
> can leave stuff open and just run a periodic check to expire old
> documents.
>
> Your main server just stores some session data for the  current state
> of the  ghostscript session.  you can


Interesting thinking .. thanks for that.

For simplicity's sake I would prefer to have a single web server with some
sort of 'process table' arrangement; I'd like to use a global hash for that,
but failing that I may look to SQLite, since we are using that in another
area.

And to perrin, thank you, I am able to report that, no, IPC::Run does not
appear to work under mod_perl -- I have posted a node at

  http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=590115

with more information. Next step, the more complicated solution.

-- 
Alex Beamish
Toronto, Ontario
aka talexb

Mime
View raw message