Message-ID: <380417ED.D6838BA3@null.videotron.ca>
From: bub <bub AT null DOT videotron DOT ca>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Question regarding CGI
References: <199910120447 DOT HAA08927 AT ankara DOT Foo DOT COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 30
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:26:05 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.200.83.106
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT videotron DOT net
X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 939792141 24.200.83.106 (Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:22:21 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 01:22:21 EDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"S. M. Halloran" wrote:

> single-task system).  The original poster did not actually say what development
> system he was using:  I had assumed he was using a system that developed Win32
> programs like RSXNTDJ rather than making a 32-bit DOS program.

I was under the impression the RSXNTDJ was "experimental" and
problematic,
so I never bothered with it.
 
> On systems I work with the client (browser) would just wait and wait and
> possibly timeout with a confusing message when the server is requested to run a
> CGI app, and then the server itself waits for something that will never come.

While this would seem to make sense, if I make a perl CGI program that
runs and 
prints nothing to stdout, I will get the same result, rather than a
timeout.

> I don't think I have ever seen a client or server report something like the
> proper headers didn't come.

Perhaps this is merely a difference in different web server's
interpretation 
of a lack of stdout to capture.
I used Windows NT's pws.

Thanks everyone.

- Bub