[collectd] collection4 FastCGI vs. HTTP

[Sebastian Harl]

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:57:31PM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > Sounds interesting … libevent should have a "good enough" userbase
> > to provide decent stability ;-)
> 
> PS: I remembered urxvt used it, but I couldn't see a dependency on
> libevent in Debian.  So I asked, and apparently the urxvt guy makes a
> "better" drop-in replacement (libev).

libev does not provide any http functionality, though. Supposedly, it is
possible to use the libevent HTTP code and link that against (the
libevent compat layer of) libev.

The libev guys claim it is “loosely modelled after libevent, but without
its limitations and bugs.” I haven't found any comparison of the two
libs (besides a benchmark), so I'm not sure what limitations and bugs
they are talking about.

> > It should be fairly easy to implement the FastCGI / standalone app
> > supports side-by-side.
> 
> You are thinking a bunch of #ifdef's and an compile-time option
> between the two?  Or make it a runtime choice?

I'd use two "main" files, each one providing a main() function and
taking care of the specific request handling and main loop stuff.

Cheers,
Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.         -- Benjamin Franklin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.verplant.org/pipermail/collectd/attachments/20110622/0ba2c113/attachment.pgp>