You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2011/03/18 23:07:00 UTC
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?
Posted by Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>.
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)
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
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?
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
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?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Mar 23, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Mark Montague <ma...@catseye.org> wrote:
>> On March 23, 2011 7:37 , Graham Leggett <mi...@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?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Mark Montague <ma...@catseye.org> wrote:
> On March 23, 2011 7:37 , Graham Leggett <mi...@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?
Posted by Mark Montague <ma...@catseye.org>.
On March 23, 2011 7:37 , Graham Leggett <mi...@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
mark@catseye.org
Re: mod_fcgid in httpd tarball?
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
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?
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
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?
Posted by Mark Montague <ma...@catseye.org>.
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
mark@catseye.org