Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org
To: users@httpd.apache.org
References: <565AF9B4.9080206@gmx.de>
 <CAGBAQ45wZFQaPd1NsKdmZXnEwUV+-XvZ7LxnnjjgvoWeuZHdQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1448834410.17748.15.camel@mimir.webthing.com>
From: Torge Riedel <torgeriedel@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <5660767A.50103@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 18:06:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1448834410.17748.15.camel@mimir.webthing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Architecture recommendations, tips, hints and help

Am 29.11.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Nick Kew:
> On Sun, 2015-11-29 at 10:05 -0500, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> You might want to use CGI or FastCGI rather than an Apache module. You
>> can write CGI in any language, including C or C++ and there are
>> libraries that already implement FastCGI for both languages.
>> There are a few benefits of not using a module
>> - If you update Apache, you may need to make changes to the module,
>> but you shouldn't need to do that with CGI
>> - Any possible issue (security or otherwise) in your code won't affect
>> the whole server
>> - Your code will be portable to other web servers in case you ever
>> decide or are forced to switch
>
> I don't have anything really useful to tell the OP, but
> I have to take issue with the above.
> - You don't have to update modules for new apache versions.
> You will need to recompile, and you may need minor updates
> (depending on what APIs the module uses) when 2.6.x comes out
> but not within 2.4.
> - Even porting to other webservers with Apache-ish roots
> (including nginx, the other open source server that matters)
> should be fairly straightforward, as you can map between the
> two APIs - at least those the OP seems likely to want.  Though
> since Apache has (by far) the richest API, you might have a
> few gaps to fill.
> - Have you ever tried porting CGI?  It's a lot less portable
> in real life than in theory.  Though I guess the biggest
> issue is if you want to support windows and anything-else.
> - As for security and other issues, if the OP is most at home
> in C then that's where he's (on balance) at least risk of
> screwing up.
>
Thanks a lot everybody.

I will focus on an Apache module, as I'm sure that updating apache (the normal update progress of fixes and patches) on a Linux server should not screw up the ABI. In addition, but this might be a reason of less knowledge on FastCGI, I can benefit from a lot of available stuff in Apache like DB connection pooling, etc.

Regards
Torge

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org