httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [mod_fcgid] Feedback / Suggestions
Date Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:03:01 GMT
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Olaf van der Spek
<olafvdspek@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What was the reason to import mod_fcgi again? Wasn't the ETA of
>>> mod_proxy_fcgi too high?
>>
>> mod_fcgid was imported because it was
>>
>> * widely used
>> * not actively maintained
>> * httpd developers were willing to adopt it
>>
>> I felt that it was a nice addition particularly because it had a
>> different approach to this important problem space compared with
>> mod_proxy_fcgi.
>
> What advantages does fcgid have over proxy_fcgi (except being ready)?

integrated, on-demand process management

>
>>>
>>>> In the interim, is mod_fastcgi really that bad?
>>>
>>> I assume mod_fcgi wasn't developed without proper reason.
>>
>> So do I.  (FWIW, I've put a lot of time into mod_fcgid and expect to
>> continue doing so in the future.)
>>
>> The situation at hand seems to be
>>
>> * mod_proxy_fcgi promises to meet those requirements but falls short at present
>> * mod_fcgid doesn't even try
>> * mod_fastcgi implements at least some of those requirements and is mature
>
> mod_fcgid isn't in 2.2, right?

mod_fcgid is actually not bundled with the HTTP server.  It is
released on its own cycle, and supports httpd 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and trunk
(future httpd 2.4.x) with one delivery.

> So what's the plan for 2.4? Have both of them? Or is mod_proxy_fcgi
> expected to be not ready for 2.4?

mod_fcgid will support 2.4.  proxy-fcgi folk(s), care to speak up on your baby?

Mime
View raw message