Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <20051229224703.GA22036@dochas.stdlib.net>
References: <20051229224703.GA22036@dochas.stdlib.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <C962B20D-B4B6-46FF-895F-ADE5E1EF8D97@jaguNET.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: execd: fcgi, per-child, cgid and maybe suexec
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:29:23 -0500
To: dev@httpd.apache.org

Just this last one, and then that's it until mid-next-week :)

On Dec 29, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:

>
> [1] and [3] on their own are simply enough, [2] is the crazy part.
> Does any of this make any sense?
>

This all makes a lot of sense to me, in fact #2 kind of aligns
with something I was thinking about regarding how to
fit per-child into the proxy balancer stuff. In fact,
I think that having proxy balancer be the front
end to mod_execd allows for a lot of scaling
and control, but I haven't gone any further than
just thinking about it conceptually (something like
defining a worker execd://foo.com/process).

Yeah, we'll need something like apr_pass_fd/apr_grab_fd.

This reminds me: I know that the GSoC effort for perchild didn't
work out, but was *anything* done? I heard something about a
design framework being produced?