httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)
Date Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:06:29 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:39:20 +0800 (CST)
Pqf 潘庆峰 <> wrote:

> Hi, guys
>    A company need a "TCP/IP patch of mod_fcgid or alternative", and
> will pay for it, anyone interested? I really like to take it but I
> don't have too much time... Anyone interested please reply to me and
> I will forward the email address of them.
> ...
> Neti only listens on TCP/IP socket, it assumes both an authorizer
> role and a responder role in the Fast CGI request. Here's the 3
> candidate Apache modules to interface Neti:
> ...
> 2. Mod_proxy_fcgi: this module supports TCP socket, it can connect to
> Neti, but it doesn't support authorizer role. So in the first FCGI
> request, it forwards the request to Neti as a responder instead of an
> authorizer, Neti cannot simply let it through without properly
> authorizing it first, thus the request fails;
> 3. Mod_fcgid: this module supports authorizer role while doesn't
> support TCP connection. We cannot confirm its authorizer role since
> it doesn't even connect to Neti due to lack of TCP;
> So our choice is between either adding authorizer role to
> mod_proxy_fcgi or adding TCP/IP to mod_fcgid. 
> We’re really willing to pay to have this project done, I mean either
> adding proxy to mod_fcgid or adding authorizer to mod_proxy_fcgi. Are
> you willing to work on this with reward or do you know anyone else
> who’s interested in doing so with pay, for example, author of
> mod_proxy_fcgi? (I cannot find his name)

No cycles myself at this instant, but it seems overtime to break apart
the mod_fcgid process-control so that it can then stack on top of a
single mod_proxy_fcgi communications pipe, dispatched through different
fcgi-stream methods (including child process stdio), including the
various authn/authz roles.  It would take more time to refactor it in
this way, but would get rid of any discrepancies between proxy_fcgi
and fcgid and serve as a good excuse to draw the remaining mod_fcgid
development back into trunk/, now that fcgid is generally sufficient
for 2.2 users.

View raw message