Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates
 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=iukZwz04pOF7qdvS+FqluS9bgD94YuKcsm1fnxbWa074+5RNh8bRocSs8frrfJSeXR
         tqrFwM6i4wvjL5ZGSdnjWRK//fR0XwnQ0GEbwz0smxjk4KpyoredgPZVkAAUmsUgRHh8
         MA+Ey+2kOIo+lRKiH9Wf79uB5WGQQMxhhqtTk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b2cc26e40911240734h162bf7f8t7a26613a82b4c765@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1082520665@web.de>
	 <cc67648e0911240724l25d2e507ua8a6482e341b0acc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b2cc26e40911240734h162bf7f8t7a26613a82b4c765@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:47:25 -0500
Message-ID: <cc67648e0911240747m6c80c0celd350b53cf0c93038@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mod_fcgid] Feedback / Suggestions
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Olaf van der Spek
<olafvdspek@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (1)
>>> mod_fcgid should be capable of specifying an external FCGI server.
>>> (2)
>>> In conjunction with (1), mod_fcgid should be able to select the backend
>>> server based on request data.
>>
>> I'd much rather see effort put into mod_proxy_fcgi to support this use
>> case. =A0I wish somebody, perhaps myself, had time to work on it. =A0It
>> doesn't seem that hard a task.
>
> 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.

>
>> 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 pre=
sent
* mod_fcgid doesn't even try
* mod_fastcgi implements at least some of those requirements and is mature