On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Olaf van der Spek <olafvds...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@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?
