3 ms·
I've always loved the simplicity and flexibility of CGI. To check my understanding: since CGI just takes a raw request over stdin and returns a response over s
by paulgb 4y ago
I've always loved the simplicity and flexibility of CGI.
To check my understanding: since CGI just takes a raw request over stdin and returns a response over stdout, would a WCGI wasm module be compatible with WAGI[1] and vice-versa?
[1] https://github.com/deislabs/wagi https://github.com/deislabs/wagi
- syrusakbary 4y agoThat's right, both WCGI and WAGI are currently compatible! Things might evolve a bit different on the mid term, but let's see what the future holds :)
- cassepipe 4y agoTo me it has always felt like a underspecified hack but maybe I am talking out of ignorance. (I did read the RFC though( I think it's strange idea to run to get a bunch of arguments that you have to get from the environment and/or the stdin and parse the whole of it and then try to programmatically output it all by printing to stdout. No wonder people have come up with template languages that are html supersets and that work with a preprocessor. I don't use CGI but when I do I like the simplicity of Haserl (Basic template language + any interpreter, lua by default) : https://haserl.sourceforge.net/ https://haserl.sourceforge.net/
- benatkin 4y agoMatt Butcher who used to work at Deis, which developed WAGI, and Microsoft after it was acquired, now has a new startup, Fermyon, which has something called Spin which I think uses a new protocol that's different from CGI. https://www.fermyon.com/blog/introducing-spin https://www.fermyon.com/blog/introducing-spin That would make sense, anyhoo. CGI is plain text which I don't think is optimal for this stuff.
- syrusakbary 4y agoHey Ben, why so many comments spamming Fermyon on this thread? Do you have any relation with them?