Re: Question about QZSRCGI. -- WEB400

Subject: Re: Question about QZSRCGI.
From: "Crispin" <cbates@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:01:49 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/web400>
List-help: <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:web400@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400>, <mailto:web400-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

----Original Message-----

From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Joe Pluta

I have to disagree. Persistent connections are a requirement for
high-performance applications. You need to keep heavyweight application
artifacts like open data paths and.SQL cursors around between calls; you
can't afford to rebuild them for every request. I've used persistent
connections with JSP Model 2 from the get-go, and EGL will also support
persistent connections.

Hmmm...I see consistent sub-second response times from a CGI application
that does not keep persistent connections :-)

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Question about QZSRCGI. , Joe Pluta

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.