home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu.tar
/
ftp.cs.arizona.edu
/
icon
/
newsgrp
/
group96a.txt
/
000107_icon-group-sender _Wed Apr 24 22:03:55 1996.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1996-09-05
|
1KB
Received: by cheltenham.cs.arizona.edu; Thu, 25 Apr 1996 06:16:37 MST
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:03:55 -0500
From: jeffery@dragon.cs.utsa.edu (Clinton Jeffery)
Message-Id: <9604250303.AA13291@water.cs.utsa.edu>
To: gep2@computek.net
Cc: icon-group@cs.arizona.edu
In-Reply-To: <199604241818.NAA24168@ns1.computek.net> (gep2@computek.net)
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Why isn't Icon more widely used? -Reply
Content-Length: 927
Errors-To: icon-group-errors@cs.arizona.edu
Status: O
[Gordon Peterson writes:]
One step in the right direction would be a (probably
minor) adaptation to the interpreter to make it more "CGI efficient" (for
example, if it were possible to permit reusing the interpreter for
multiple applications in series without having to reload it each time).
This is a good idea, and could be done without much work. We already have
a capability for one Icon program to load and execute other Icon programs,
we just need to work out the protocol for sending a job/program to such an
"Icon server". Under those UNIX systems that support the dynamic loading
facility and can use the sockets code in the Icon program library, the whole
thing is readily implementable, the question is just: who wants to do it?
Clint Jeffery
jeffery@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
Division of Computer Science
The University of Texas at San Antonio
Research http://www.cs.utsa.edu/research/plss.html