Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache?

[Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen <ravn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Den 30/12/10 22.33, Kevin Turner skrev:
> Yes your assumption is correct (at least from my perspective).
>
> "If so, the typical Apache solution to the overhead of CGI is to embed
> the language environment in the Apache binary instead of invoking it
> every time."
>
> Where can I read more about this?  It is not a technique I am familiar with.
It was pioneered by the Perl folks (who have some very ingenious hackers 
because Perl attracts those), who loved writing CGI scripts in Perl but 
found that the repeated invocation of the Perl interpreter to run the 
scripts was a bottleneck, so they figured out how to put the Perl 
interpreter inside the Apache binary.

See Wikipedia for a very brief overview:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod_perl

and more details here http://www.perl.com/pub/2002/02/26/whatismodperl.html

Since all this was being developed on Unix boxes the code is carefully 
tuned to that platform.