On 12.09.2009 01:44, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 11.09.2009 23:40, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Rainer Jung wrote:
>>> In r814006 and r814017 I added a feature similar to Action ... virtual
>>> in CGI to mod_fcgi:
>>>
>>> By default it is off, but it allows to use FCGI processes in combination
>>> with purely virtual URLs, i.e. URLs not pointing to physical files on
>>> the server.
>>>
>>> The most basic FCGI configurations simply run the files pointed to by
>>> the URLs as FCGI processes. The improved version is mapping some
>>> suffixes to a common FCGI process (like .php). The process then might
>>> execute the actual php script (or find it in its cache).
>>>
>>> Its quite possible though, that your URLs only logically transport the
>>> kind of action you want, without really pointing to some file. Version
>>> 2.3.1 of mod_fcgid forces a file to exist, otherwise it returns an error.
>>>
>>> The "virtual" feature allows to add the "virtual" flag to FCGIWrapper,
>>> which then bypasses the file existence check for the request URL. Of
>>> course we still need the wraper file the request gets mapped to via
>>> FCGIWrapper.
>>>
>>> This is very similar to the "virtual" keyword added to "Action".
>>
>> Isn't this the same as using Action virtual, and associating the target
>> of the Action command to mod_fcgid? Any reason to reimplement this in
>> several places?
>
> As far as I can see, Action only allows to map handlers and conten types
> to scripts.
>
> mod_fcgid allows to use various FastCGI "applications" mapped by
> individual path suffixes (e.g. .php4, .php5 via FCGIWrapper).
>
> Furthermore I wasn't actually successful in making Action and mod_fcgid
> interoperate.
OK, I can make it work using for example:
AddHandler fcgid-example1 .fcgi
AddHandler fcgid-example2 .fcgi2
Action fcgid-example1 /fcgi/wrapper virtual
Action fcgid-example2 /fcgi/wrapper2 virtual
<Location /fcgi/>
SetHandler fcgid-script
Options +ExecCGI
</Location>
So now the question is: do we need the FCGIWrapper directive at all?
