From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA06612; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:38:34 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA06725 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:38:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from muscadet.inria.fr (muscadet.inria.fr [128.93.8.12]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5KLcWSH002271 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:38:32 +0200 Received: by muscadet.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 11404) id 6F26D7AAC; Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:38:32 +0200 (CEST) To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: [Caml-list] mod_caml's bytecode restriction due to Apache or just CGI dyn'linking? Reply-To: James Leifer From: James Leifer Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 23:38:32 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 40D603D8.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml's:01 caml's:01 read-only:01 hash:01 perfomance:01 statically:01 natively:01 glue:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 caml:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 handles:01 native:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi Richard et al, I had a question about mod_caml's design. I understand from the web page that confining CGIs to bytecode isn't particularly onereous. The argument that most of the overhead is in talking with the db makes perfect sense. Yet for some applications, native would be useful. For example, for read-only data that changes only a few times a day, one can pack it in Ocaml hash tables and get high perfomance queries right in Ocaml. In such a setup where Ocaml handles both the page layout *and* the functionality of a db, native code looks a lot more attractive. So... Is the limitation to use bytecode due to the desire to support *dynamic* linking of CGIs or for other reasons? If only the former, then could one simply forgo this feature and *statically* link all the natively compiled CGIs together with the mod_caml glue to make a library that gets delivered to Apache? If the price is that I have to restart Apache when changing my CGIs I would be willing to pay it. Kind regards, -James ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners