Subject: Re: Troubles with programs used as CGI's
From: [email-masked] (James Dumser)

19 Jun 1997 08:26:06 -0700
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Original-To: [email-masked]
Original-Cc: [email-masked] (Gunther Ebert),
        [email-masked] (Geoffrey Noer)
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> from "Gunther Ebert" at Jun 12, 97 08:37:13 am
X-MIMI-Options: headers none
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Concerning the ability to write CGI programs with cygwin32 (running as
multiple users, in different user contexts), we've seen several answers
from the list...

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 18:15:55 -0700 (PDT), Geoffrey Noer <[email-masked]>
  wrote:
>This is false.  I run multiple cygwin processes concurrently all
>the time and don't have any problems doing so.

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 08:37:13 +0000, Gunther Ebert
  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>This is a known behaviour of cygwin up to beta 17. It is fixed in
>the current release. I have no problems running multiple cygwin tasks 
>simultaneously under different user accounts with b18.

I don't know if Geoffrey was answering the "multiuser" question or just
the "multitasking" question (Pasqualino "Titto" Assini's
<[email-masked]> original message may have been misinterpreted as
asking about straight multitasking), but I like Gunther's answer much
better.

Back in B14/B17, this multiuser issue (e.g., CGI programs that may run
while you happen to be logged into your machine) was addressed; at that
time, the answer was "it's a limitation -- live with it." (I avoided
trying to build Perl under cygwin32 specifically because I run CGI Perl
scripts.)

When B18 was released, I don't recall it being mentioned that it fixed
this problem. (Maybe it was mentioned by saying that the underlying
problem [Impure data??] was fixed, but I for one did not make the
connection.)

In any case, if Geoffrey was answering the multiuser question, then his
"Of course it works -- what's your problem?" denial-type answer is
overly harsh and misleading. Gunther's "It used to not work, but it
works now" answer is much more appropriate. Even if Gunther did not know
the specific history of the problem, just acknowledging the problem used
to exist adds validity to his answer.

Not trying to pick on you, Geoffrey -- I'm sure your sanity wears a
little thin after answering the same old questions over and over again
-- but we were all uninformed on some subject at some point.

Guess it's high time to go off to code some CGI programs. :)

-- 
James Dumser    972-462-5335 [email-masked]
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".