> > > Then I have a cgi that redirects to different static pages, based
> on > > info. > > in the environment variables.
> > Is this an NPH script or not?
> Don't know,
Well, it's your CGI ;-)
Although, from what you say, it seems that you are screened from the
details of CGI processing by various bits of software, I'm afraid I'd
have to say that unless you get some basic familiarity with the CGI
specification itself, say the original pages at
http://hoohoo.ncsa.uiuc.edu/cgi/ , at least to the point where you can
recognise which bit fits where, and can "name the parts" in the way that
the CGI spec names them, you're likely to have an unnecessarily hard
time getting help here (which could still be marginally appropriate) or
on the c.i.w.authoring.cgi group (which your questions might really be
more appropriate to).
Check out also Nick Kew's CGI FAQ, copy at www.htmlhelp.org
Whether a script is an NPH script or not, is usually determined
by its name (whether it begins with nph- or not). But it seems
there are some servers that treat all scripts like NPH scripts.
> > > <HTML>
> > > <HEAD>
> > ...
> > > and then the body received by the client is missing the html header.
> > This looks like the result of an HTTP/0.9 request. Are you sure you
> > issued an HTTP/1.*-style request?
> No, actually I have no idea. I was just guessing that the component I
> was using would just be always doing the same kind of request, I see
> no reason why it wouldn't. (I'm using Borland C++ Builder 3, the
> component is from NetMasters).
It would be good for diagnostic purposes to learn how to issue
such a request "by hand", e.g using TELNET to the server's HTTP port
or similar diagnostic techniques. I think the FAQ has some other
suggestions for diagnostic techniques.
It sounds as if your "component" could have fooled you by swallowing
the HTTP header and just delivering the body. A reasonable thing to
do, as long as it's what you're expecting.
Quote:> So thanks to this clue, I went and tried a different component to see
> what it would do, and it seems to work correctly.
> Strange how the "big company" who charges for it's components seems to
> act "goofier" than free components just written by some individual.
Am I surprised?
Quote:> What I wish had found is a good tutorial for beginners, something
> tailored for virtual server users that clearly explains the http and
> how it ties in with the way the apachi server works, and the way
> clients interact with it all.
Well, the original tutorial at NCSA (see cited URL) is not bad, albeit
somewhat sparse and rather C-oriented. If you add a Host: header to
every transaction so as to take care of virtual hosting, I think it
would be a start. Most CGI tutorials are centered on a specific
language, but perhaps someone can make a better suggestion. You
really should drift across to c.i.w.a.cgi though, as I said before.
You'd come back to this group if you had the CGI side sorted out, but a
specific Unix server wasn't coping with it properly, for example.
There's a lot to be said for playing around with a few trivial scripts -
even shell scripts can suffice for this, although Perl is better if you
are willing to try it - and calling up the server by hand and looking at
what happens. Trying to learn CGI techniques by wallowing around in a
mass of compiled code that's an almost-complete fullscale application is
no kind of a joke.
Good luck, again ;-)
"If it ain't fun, you're not doing it right" - Jacqui