Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42646 > unrolled thread

CGI Scripting in Forth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 15:58 -0700
    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 08:15 +0300
      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 12:07 -0700
        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-16 13:03 -0700
          Re: CGI Scripting in Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-16 11:13 -1000
            Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-16 14:23 -0700
              Re: CGI Scripting in Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-16 13:34 -1000
                Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-16 18:26 -0700
                  Re: CGI Scripting in Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 22:44 -0400
                    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-16 20:02 -0700
                      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 00:33 -0400
                        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-17 07:14 +0000
                      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-16 21:26 -1000
                        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-17 10:36 -0700
                  Re: CGI Scripting in Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-16 21:06 -1000
                    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-17 00:12 -0700
                      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-16 21:42 -1000
        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 19:26 +0300
    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 04:24 -0700
    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth josv@planet.nl - 2015-10-16 07:50 -0700
      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 10:01 -0700
        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-16 08:20 -1000
          Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-16 11:33 -0700
    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-17 17:18 +0000
      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 11:37 -0700
        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 11:59 -0700
    Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 11:53 -0700
      Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-20 12:09 -0700
        Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-20 12:19 -0700
          Re: CGI Scripting in Forth Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 11:51 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#42646 — CGI Scripting in Forth

Hello,

As a long time member of this forum, I do realize that out
of all of the chatter and clatter, it is possible to squeeze
some useful information out of this place, after all, there
are some pretty darn clever people who inhabit this forum.

As a Forth guy and somebody who creates websites for 
a living, I am interested in using Forth in place of
PHP or Perl.  I would of course needs CGI.  It is 
something I have contemplated for a long time, but I
have not yet delved into.  I would like a list of 
possible systems/setups to use for this.  I don't 
think that security would be an issue for me as I am
versed enough to avoid such problems.

One concern for me is that many of my clients use cheap
hosting.  On these cheap hosting machines there is 
something called shared hosting, which means that more
than one customer leases use of the same box which sits
in the warehouse full of computers owned by the hosting
company.  They probably don't want you to install weird
programming languages that they don't know about.  The
alternative would be to set up cheap stand alone hosting,
so the customer gets their own box in the warehouse for
something like maybe $60, month.  That means that I have
to master the art of installing an OS on such a machine
or give in to having them install it for me which costs
money.

I don't want to do the hosting at my own premise as I feel
that my clients would like 24 hour support such as if the
physical machine fails, that there is somebody besides 
myself to shunt the hosting to another box.  

One thing that comes to mind is using gforth. A very long
time ago I remember experimenting with this and having to
use a bash #! control "word" in the script that I was
running to start it up.  But then again I vaguely remember 
trying this experiment again, to no avail and then contacting 
my cheap hosting company and having them tell me that I was 
not allowed to run gforth.  So security gets tighter and
life gets more restrictive as time goes by.  Does it help?

So, if I am using a hosting company they are probably going
to provide or only be willing to accommodate Linux or Windows.
This means that FOS is out of the question, at least and unless 
you are willing to point out a company willing to host a FOS 
box.

If I am setting up a box in a warehouse for a client, I have the
option of not putting PHP or Perl or any other interpreter on it
which would I surmise reduce the risk of getting hacked. 

CGI would be necessary.  I would then need HTTP.  HTTPS might 
be nice to have.  An interface to POP or SMTP mail would be a 
necessity as well. 

I wanted to start this thread as it might be of use to 
some people.   If there are any thoughts or suggestions to offer
then please kindly respond to this thread with such useful
information.

Jason Damisch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#42648

On 10/16/15 01:58, Jason Damisch wrote:
> Hello,
>
> ...  They probably don't want you to install weird
> programming languages that they don't know about.  The
> alternative would be to set up cheap stand alone hosting,
> so the customer gets their own box in the warehouse for
> something like maybe $60, month.  That means that I have
> to master the art of installing an OS on such a machine
> or give in to having them install it for me which costs
> money.

FWIW, I've been extremely pleased with 'linode.com'.  I'm paying $20 a 
month for excellent connectivity, I can put anything I like on the box, 
they take care of all the infrastructure mess.  It's absolutely great.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42662

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:15:22 PM UTC-7, Ron Aaron wrote:

> FWIW, I've been extremely pleased with 'linode.com'.  I'm paying $20 a 
> month for excellent connectivity, I can put anything I like on the box, 
> they take care of all the infrastructure mess.  It's absolutely great.

I put this into my notes.  I will give it a look over.
I assume at the moment that I could put 8th, SwiftForth Linux or
MPE Linux on this and do something.  Again I would like to be able
to use CGI which would be HTTP, wouldn't it?  This is so that I 
could add additional functionality to websites for my clients who
tend to be small businesses.  Generally speaking, out of the box
scripts have thus far provided what was needed, but I'd like to have
options.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42663

Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> writes:
> I put this into my notes.  I will give it a look over.
> I assume at the moment that I could put 8th, SwiftForth Linux or
> MPE Linux on this and do something.  Again I would like to be able
> to use CGI which would be HTTP, wouldn't it? 

Linode is good but rather expensive and there are lots of similar
services that cost lots less (ramnode.com's $15/year, 128 meg SSD plan
is plenty for what you're doing).  Linode's $20/month plan has 2GB of
ram which is massive overkill for a small web site or Forth CGI.

CGI scripts don't run HTTP per se--they just generate HTML text.  The
http server launches the CGI script when a request for it comes in, and
the CGI can access the query and http parameters through environment
variables.  The script can read the query's POST data from its standard
input and write HTML to its standard output.

If you really want to run a concurrent HTTP server in Forth, they
probably exist.  Polyforth multitasking (as I understand it) uses a CPU
busy loop which is completely unsuitable for shared hosting (cpu
hogging) or modern server hardware in general (vastly increased power
consumption compared to idling).  But I think Swift and VFX multitaskers
know how to idle.  I think it's more practical to stay with a more
standard httpd like nginx or apache, and just run cgi's under it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42664

On 10/16/15 10:03 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
...

>
> If you really want to run a concurrent HTTP server in Forth, they
> probably exist.  Polyforth multitasking (as I understand it) uses a CPU
> busy loop which is completely unsuitable for shared hosting (cpu
> hogging) or modern server hardware in general (vastly increased power
> consumption compared to idling).  But I think Swift and VFX multitaskers
> know how to idle.  I think it's more practical to stay with a more
> standard httpd like nginx or apache, and just run cgi's under it.
>

That's a misleading description of polyFORTH multitasking (which is 
essentially the same as in SwiftX today). "Idling" consists of waiting 
for a task to wish to become active, which costs one instruction per 
defined task. An idle task can be awakened by an interrupt, and will go 
to sleep again the next time it does I/O or PAUSEs. Waking up a task or 
putting one to sleep is typically half-dozen machine instructions. So 
it's really a low-overhead operation.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42665

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> Waking up a task or putting one to sleep is typically half-dozen
> machine instructions. So it's really a low-overhead operation.

The question is what the task switcher does when there are no user tasks
ready to run.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42666

On 10/16/15 11:23 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> Waking up a task or putting one to sleep is typically half-dozen
>> machine instructions. So it's really a low-overhead operation.
>
> The question is what the task switcher does when there are no user tasks
> ready to run.
>

That depends on the platform. On an MSP430 it goes to low-power mode. On 
some systems it is looking for an active task (one instruction/task). 
But if nothing is active, does it matter?

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42667

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> That depends on the platform. On an MSP430 it goes to low-power
> mode. On some systems it is looking for an active task (one
> instruction/task). But if nothing is active, does it matter?

I had heard in the context of GA144 Polyforth that it simply looped
through the task list eating cpu, instead of halting the processor until
the next i/o event or timer tick.  That burns a huge amount of cpu
cycles, using power, making heat, and making those cycles unusable to
other users on a shared hosting system.  Does it even run on x86 servers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42668

On 10/16/2015 9:26 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> That depends on the platform. On an MSP430 it goes to low-power
>> mode. On some systems it is looking for an active task (one
>> instruction/task). But if nothing is active, does it matter?
>
> I had heard in the context of GA144 Polyforth that it simply looped
> through the task list eating cpu, instead of halting the processor until
> the next i/o event or timer tick.  That burns a huge amount of cpu
> cycles, using power, making heat, and making those cycles unusable to
> other users on a shared hosting system.  Does it even run on x86 servers?

How can looping, waiting for a task to be ready prevent anyone from 
using the CPU?  You realize this is on a limited number of cores in the 
GA144 where each core uses relatively little power, right?

I'm not sure what you are objecting to.  If there's anything available 
to waste on a GA144, it is CPU cycles.  That is the underlying premise 
of the chip architecture - that CPU cycles are so cheap they can afford 
to be "burned" if that has a purpose.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42670

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> How can looping, waiting for a task to be ready prevent anyone from
> using the CPU?  You realize this is on a limited number of cores in
> the GA144 where each core uses relatively little power, right?

In the case of the GA144, busy looping increased the power consumption
noticibly (like from microwatts to milliwatts) but originally this was
about running Forth CGI's on an x86 server.  The concept of a web server
(httpd) in Polyforth then came up and I mentioned the busy looping
issue.  Typically on those small VM's, there are 100's of other people
with stuff on the machine, mostly idling.  Even if you have the server
to yourself, the power consumption difference is really substantial,
like a few watts at idle but 100+ watts when busy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42671

On 10/16/2015 11:02 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> How can looping, waiting for a task to be ready prevent anyone from
>> using the CPU?  You realize this is on a limited number of cores in
>> the GA144 where each core uses relatively little power, right?
>
> In the case of the GA144, busy looping increased the power consumption
> noticibly (like from microwatts to milliwatts) but originally this was
> about running Forth CGI's on an x86 server.  The concept of a web server
> (httpd) in Polyforth then came up and I mentioned the busy looping
> issue.  Typically on those small VM's, there are 100's of other people
> with stuff on the machine, mostly idling.  Even if you have the server
> to yourself, the power consumption difference is really substantial,
> like a few watts at idle but 100+ watts when busy.

You can talk about the F18A CPU running mW rather than µW, but in an 
application this distinction is moot unless the entire chip is idling 
some large percentage of the time.  There are few apps you can envision 
for the GA144 that won't require some form of a processor idling or 
otherwise running full out.  That is one of the reasons why I gave up 
trying to use the chip.  It is hard to have an asynch processor running 
in a sync world.

How exactly does a recent x86 processor idle?  I thought they reduced 
power through the software?  When the processor runs the idle process 
the processor is told to reduce clock frequency.  I'm not aware that it 
reduces the power so drastically.  I know my processor *never* runs at a 
"few watts".

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42675

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>How exactly does a recent x86 processor idle?  I thought they reduced 
>power through the software?  When the processor runs the idle process 
>the processor is told to reduce clock frequency.  I'm not aware that it 
>reduces the power so drastically.  I know my processor *never* runs at a 
>"few watts".

Modern CPUs (and the rest of the machine) have a lot of power-saving
features, and these can really make a big difference.  E.g., in the
review of mainboards for Skylake in c't 22/2015, there is one board
that has idle power consumption of 9.7W (for PSU, mainboard, Core
i5-6600K, 8GB RAM, SSD, Keyboard and Mouse), and consumes 91W with
these components under load.  The most hungry board consumes 23W at
idle with these components, and 114W under load.

And idling is not just running at a lower frequency (and voltage);
using the HLT instruction saves power since the 80486DX4 in 1994; and
since then various C-states have been introduced for saving even more
power.  See
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface#Power_states>.

Concerning shared hosting, while the hypervisor will give other users
their share of the CPU, if your software uses busy waiting and thus
loads the CPU all the time, the hoster is likely to notice and will
then probably elect not to continue the low-cost deal that you have
with them now; they may offer you a more expensive offer; or maybe you
have an offer that only includes a number of CPU hours anyway, and you
will have to pay extra if you use more; and if all the others idle
cooperatively most of the time, your busy idling may consume many CPU
hours.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42674

On 10/16/15 5:02 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> How can looping, waiting for a task to be ready prevent anyone from
>> using the CPU?  You realize this is on a limited number of cores in
>> the GA144 where each core uses relatively little power, right?
>
> In the case of the GA144, busy looping increased the power consumption
> noticibly (like from microwatts to milliwatts) but originally this was
> about running Forth CGI's on an x86 server.  The concept of a web server
> (httpd) in Polyforth then came up and I mentioned the busy looping
> issue.  Typically on those small VM's, there are 100's of other people
> with stuff on the machine, mostly idling.  Even if you have the server
> to yourself, the power consumption difference is really substantial,
> like a few watts at idle but 100+ watts when busy.
>

I have no idea how the polyFORTH on the GA144 works. Almost certainly 
its multitasker would have been written by Greg of someone near his 
capability, who understands the concepts well. Greg has never wasted a 
cycle in his entire life :-)

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42682

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 12:26:31 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:

>  Greg has never wasted a cycle in his entire life :-)

I respect his skills.  He even wrote his own internet server code
from scratch in Forth.  I should find out exactly what it can do,
just for the sake of knowing if nothing else.

Jason

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42672

On 10/16/15 3:26 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> That depends on the platform. On an MSP430 it goes to low-power
>> mode. On some systems it is looking for an active task (one
>> instruction/task). But if nothing is active, does it matter?
>
> I had heard in the context of GA144 Polyforth that it simply looped
> through the task list eating cpu, instead of halting the processor until
> the next i/o event or timer tick.  That burns a huge amount of cpu
> cycles, using power, making heat, and making those cycles unusable to
> other users on a shared hosting system.  Does it even run on x86 servers?
>

On hosted systems our multitasker is quite different, adapted to "play 
well" with the host OS. I am only talking about native systems here. We 
have done both hosted and native implementations on x86 processors. In 
any case, it is only looping if no other tasks are active. Not all 
processors have the ability to halt or go into low-power mode like the 
MSP does; when they do, we use it.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42673

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> I had heard in the context of GA144 Polyforth that it simply looped
> On hosted systems our multitasker is quite different

Is there even a Polyforth product for hosted systems any more?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42676

On 10/16/15 9:12 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>>> I had heard in the context of GA144 Polyforth that it simply looped
>> On hosted systems our multitasker is quite different
>
> Is there even a Polyforth product for hosted systems any more?
>

No, it was discontinued as a product in the mid-90's.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42679

On 10/16/15 22:07, Jason Damisch wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 10:15:22 PM UTC-7, Ron Aaron wrote:
>
>> FWIW, I've been extremely pleased with 'linode.com'.  I'm paying $20 a
>> month for excellent connectivity, I can put anything I like on the box,
>> they take care of all the infrastructure mess.  It's absolutely great.
>
> I put this into my notes.  I will give it a look over.
> I assume at the moment that I could put 8th, SwiftForth Linux or
> MPE Linux on this and do something.  Again I would like to be able
> to use CGI which would be HTTP, wouldn't it? ...

Yes indeed.

What you get from linode is a virtual box, which you put some linux 
distro on (it's a matter of clicking to install, nothing difficult or 
time consuming).

Then you have a full linux system, with root access; you can put 
anything you like on it.

On my specific system I'm running Apache as the HTTP server, and MySQL 
as the back-end, along with PHP and lots of other things as well as 8th. 
  FWIW, I'm using 8th right now for CGI to handle the results of a 
survey (https://8th-dev.com/survey.html)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42650

On Thursday, 15 October 2015 23:58:59 UTC+1, Jason Damisch  wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> As a long time member of this forum, I do realize that out
> of all of the chatter and clatter, it is possible to squeeze
> some useful information out of this place, after all, there
> are some pretty darn clever people who inhabit this forum.
> 
> As a Forth guy and somebody who creates websites for 
> a living, I am interested in using Forth in place of
> PHP or Perl.  I would of course needs CGI.  It is 
> something I have contemplated for a long time, but I
> have not yet delved into.  I would like a list of 
> possible systems/setups to use for this.  I don't 
> think that security would be an issue for me as I am
> versed enough to avoid such problems.
> 
> One concern for me is that many of my clients use cheap
> hosting.  On these cheap hosting machines there is 
> something called shared hosting, which means that more
> than one customer leases use of the same box which sits
> in the warehouse full of computers owned by the hosting
> company.  They probably don't want you to install weird
> programming languages that they don't know about.  The
> alternative would be to set up cheap stand alone hosting,
> so the customer gets their own box in the warehouse for
> something like maybe $60, month.  That means that I have
> to master the art of installing an OS on such a machine
> or give in to having them install it for me which costs
> money.
> 
> I don't want to do the hosting at my own premise as I feel
> that my clients would like 24 hour support such as if the
> physical machine fails, that there is somebody besides 
> myself to shunt the hosting to another box.  
> 
> One thing that comes to mind is using gforth. A very long
> time ago I remember experimenting with this and having to
> use a bash #! control "word" in the script that I was
> running to start it up.  But then again I vaguely remember 
> trying this experiment again, to no avail and then contacting 
> my cheap hosting company and having them tell me that I was 
> not allowed to run gforth.  So security gets tighter and
> life gets more restrictive as time goes by.  Does it help?
> 
> So, if I am using a hosting company they are probably going
> to provide or only be willing to accommodate Linux or Windows.
> This means that FOS is out of the question, at least and unless 
> you are willing to point out a company willing to host a FOS 
> box.
> 
> If I am setting up a box in a warehouse for a client, I have the
> option of not putting PHP or Perl or any other interpreter on it
> which would I surmise reduce the risk of getting hacked. 
> 
> CGI would be necessary.  I would then need HTTP.  HTTPS might 
> be nice to have.  An interface to POP or SMTP mail would be a 
> necessity as well. 
> 
> I wanted to start this thread as it might be of use to 
> some people.   If there are any thoughts or suggestions to offer
> then please kindly respond to this thread with such useful
> information.
> 
> Jason Damisch

Have a look at Julian Fondren's thread, here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/vWHfJSlfHHE

This is exactly what you're looking for, I think.

HTH

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#42655

How many users will use the system concurrently?

Jos

On 16 oktober 2015 00:58:59 UTC+2 Jason Damisch wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> As a long time member of this forum, I do realize that out
> of all of the chatter and clatter, it is possible to squeeze
> some useful information out of this place, after all, there
> are some pretty darn clever people who inhabit this forum.
> 
> As a Forth guy and somebody who creates websites for 
> a living, I am interested in using Forth in place of
> PHP or Perl.  I would of course needs CGI.  It is 
> something I have contemplated for a long time, but I
> have not yet delved into.  I would like a list of 
> possible systems/setups to use for this.  I don't 
> think that security would be an issue for me as I am
> versed enough to avoid such problems.
> 
> One concern for me is that many of my clients use cheap
> hosting.  On these cheap hosting machines there is 
> something called shared hosting, which means that more
> than one customer leases use of the same box which sits
> in the warehouse full of computers owned by the hosting
> company.  They probably don't want you to install weird
> programming languages that they don't know about.  The
> alternative would be to set up cheap stand alone hosting,
> so the customer gets their own box in the warehouse for
> something like maybe $60, month.  That means that I have
> to master the art of installing an OS on such a machine
> or give in to having them install it for me which costs
> money.
> 
> I don't want to do the hosting at my own premise as I feel
> that my clients would like 24 hour support such as if the
> physical machine fails, that there is somebody besides 
> myself to shunt the hosting to another box.  
> 
> One thing that comes to mind is using gforth. A very long
> time ago I remember experimenting with this and having to
> use a bash #! control "word" in the script that I was
> running to start it up.  But then again I vaguely remember 
> trying this experiment again, to no avail and then contacting 
> my cheap hosting company and having them tell me that I was 
> not allowed to run gforth.  So security gets tighter and
> life gets more restrictive as time goes by.  Does it help?
> 
> So, if I am using a hosting company they are probably going
> to provide or only be willing to accommodate Linux or Windows.
> This means that FOS is out of the question, at least and unless 
> you are willing to point out a company willing to host a FOS 
> box.
> 
> If I am setting up a box in a warehouse for a client, I have the
> option of not putting PHP or Perl or any other interpreter on it
> which would I surmise reduce the risk of getting hacked. 
> 
> CGI would be necessary.  I would then need HTTP.  HTTPS might 
> be nice to have.  An interface to POP or SMTP mail would be a 
> necessity as well. 
> 
> I wanted to start this thread as it might be of use to 
> some people.   If there are any thoughts or suggestions to offer
> then please kindly respond to this thread with such useful
> information.
> 
> Jason Damisch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web