Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:39:20 +0800 (CST) Pqf 潘庆峰 p...@mailtech.cn 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.
Re: Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)
Yes, split process control from mod_fcgid, merge proxy_fcgi(with load balance) and mod_fcgid(with authXX support) is a good idea, admins can use httpd as process manager, or 3rd party process managers as they like. But don't just make a patch to make mod_fcgid support TCP/IP, it's ugly... 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.
Re: Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:46:58 +0800 (CST) Pqf 潘庆峰 p...@mailtech.cn wrote: Yes, split process control from mod_fcgid, merge proxy_fcgi(with load balance) and mod_fcgid(with authXX support) is a good idea, admins can use httpd as process manager, or 3rd party process managers as they like. But don't just make a patch to make mod_fcgid support TCP/IP, it's ugly... Nice synopsis :)
Anyone interested in a patch to mod_fcgid(with pay)
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. Our company is hosting a website with a lot of users. Each user needs login to access our server. We have an in-house FCGI program responsible for authenticate user's credentials. The FCGI program is called “Neti”;. Right now Neti works fine with Zeus server, however we want to switch to Apache server. 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: 1. Mod_fastcgi: this module has NOT been updated since 2007. It will break randomly, (not only with Neti, but with some other FCGIs), so we're not planning to pursue it; 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) Ryan
