Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On Mar 23, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Mark Montague m...@catseye.org wrote: On March 23, 2011 7:37 , Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? How do we reconcile mod_fcgid with mod_proxy_fcgid? Do they need to be reconciled? Each currently has strengths the other lacks. That's how they are reconciled ;) * mod_proxy_fcgi ONLY routes to separately managed application processes. * mod_fcgid ONLY routes to application processes it manages. Yeppers. mod_proxy_fcgi simply adds the FCGI protocol to mod_proxy (and mod_proxy_balancer). mod_fcgid is an FastCGI application manager.
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On 19 Mar 2011, at 12:07 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: It seems like mod_fcgid has made huge progress and is now in a much more stable bugfix epoch of it's life, similar to how mod_proxy had progressed when development was kicked out of core for major http/1.1 rework, and brought back in when a vast percentage of it's bugs had been addressed. Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? How do we reconcile mod_fcgid with mod_proxy_fcgid? Regards, Graham --
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On March 23, 2011 7:37 , Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? How do we reconcile mod_fcgid with mod_proxy_fcgid? Do they need to be reconciled? Each currently has strengths the other lacks. I'd be fine with having both in future httpd 2.3.x betas and 2.4, at least until one clearly becomes redundant compared to the other. -- Mark Montague m...@catseye.org
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On 3/23/2011 6:37 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: On 19 Mar 2011, at 12:07 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: It seems like mod_fcgid has made huge progress and is now in a much more stable bugfix epoch of it's life, similar to how mod_proxy had progressed when development was kicked out of core for major http/1.1 rework, and brought back in when a vast percentage of it's bugs had been addressed. Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? How do we reconcile mod_fcgid with mod_proxy_fcgid? We clarify the docs if they are misaligned. AIUI, mod_proxy_fcgid does not perform process control, while mod_fcgid follows the processing spawning example of mod_cgi, mod_cgid etc.
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Mark Montague m...@catseye.org wrote: On March 23, 2011 7:37 , Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? How do we reconcile mod_fcgid with mod_proxy_fcgid? Do they need to be reconciled? Each currently has strengths the other lacks. That's how they are reconciled ;) * mod_proxy_fcgi ONLY routes to separately managed application processes. * mod_fcgid ONLY routes to application processes it manages.
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: It seems like mod_fcgid has made huge progress and is now in a much more stable bugfix epoch of it's life, similar to how mod_proxy had progressed when development was kicked out of core for major http/1.1 rework, and brought back in when a vast percentage of it's bugs had been addressed. Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? I'd support that, yeah.
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It seems like mod_fcgid has made huge progress and is now in a much more stable bugfix epoch of it's life, similar to how mod_proxy had progressed when development was kicked out of core for major http/1.1 rework, and brought back in when a vast percentage of it's bugs had been addressed. Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? I'm thinking about it :) (I think some process management changes (including directives) should be changed before the next fcgid bump (e.g., fcgid 2.4.x or httpd 2.4.x if bundled). Are there cycles to do that in the short term? Are the changes really important?)
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
I really like to see this included in 2.3.x For me it runs great since ages on Windows[1] and Linux. Mario [1] expect of Bug 50309 (patch included)
mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
It seems like mod_fcgid has made huge progress and is now in a much more stable bugfix epoch of it's life, similar to how mod_proxy had progressed when development was kicked out of core for major http/1.1 rework, and brought back in when a vast percentage of it's bugs had been addressed. Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta?
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
On March 18, 2011 18:07 , William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: It seems like mod_fcgid has made huge progress and is now in a much more stable bugfix epoch of it's life, similar to how mod_proxy had progressed when development was kicked out of core for major http/1.1 rework, and brought back in when a vast percentage of it's bugs had been addressed. Do we want to introduce mod_fcgid now into httpd 2.3.x for the next beta? For what it's worth, on the systems I'm deploying, I'm using mod_proxy_fcgi and putting in as much effort as necessary to fix any bugs, add features I need to it, etc., simply because mod_proxy_fcgi is a core module, while mod_fcgid is not. If mod_fcgid were in core, I may have wound up putting the effort there instead. (I say may have because I've come to think that mod_proxy_fcgi is actually a better choice for my particular needs, anyway). -- Mark Montague m...@catseye.org
