> On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 04:35:42PM -0500, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> > I still need to factor out the Quixote<->SCGI glue our application is
> > using.  That should be done shortly.
>
> Done.  There is now a 0.2 release available from:

I gather the reason for SCGI is that FastCGI is too complicated.  What are
the reasons for not using PCGI?  The thing I always liked about PCGI was
that you didn't have to compile and insert modules into apache (and it
wasn't apache-specific).  Is it too slow?  I always had weird socket troubles
with PCGI too (system call interrupted, etc), but then I get those with FastCGI
too, I gues lots of:

...
    f.Finish()
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.2/site-packages/quixote/fcgi.py", line 330, in Fi
nish
    r.content="" ; r.writeRecord(self.conn)      # Terminate stream
  File "/usr/local/lib/python2.2/site-packages/quixote/fcgi.py", line 156, in wr
iteRecord
    sock.send(hdr + content + padLen*'\000')
socket.error: (32, 'Broken pipe')

...every time I reset the script (does anyone else get these?  it usually does
this about 3 or 4 times and then eventually settles down and starts serving
properly, I haven't had time to investigate it much).

Anyway, I'm sure that a PCGI <-> Quixote link would be easy.  Maybe I'll try it
out some day if I ever want to distribute anything.