fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
the 2.2.x distro?

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:

> On 9/7/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
>> the 2.2.x distro?
>
> ... On the other hand I doubt anyone will do so without it being in
> a release branch ;-)
>

My thoughts exactly, hence me opening up the topic ;)

> It also lacks any documentation, so that seems like a prereq for
> getting into 2.2.x.
>

I'll work on that, if it looks good that there's a possibility
for it to be added to 2.2.x.

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On 9/7/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
> the 2.2.x distro?

I'm split on the issue.  On one hand, I'd like to have some evidence
that someone has actually used it in anger and it didn't blow up on
them.  On the other hand I doubt anyone will do so without it being in
a release branch ;-)

It also lacks any documentation, so that seems like a prereq for
getting into 2.2.x.

-garrett

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Sep 7, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:

> On 9/7/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
>> the 2.2.x distro?
> +1 concept
>
> Is fcgi + balancer functionally equivalent to third-party fcgi
> solutions except for the capability of those other solutions of
> managing the fastcgi application processes?
>
Pretty much.

> Is it better at anything than those solutions, other than that we know
> who to blame if it breaks?
>

Load balancing, since it hooks into the balancer
code.

There's more work to be done, but opening it up
to a wider audience might be useful...

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On 9/7/06, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
> the 2.2.x distro?
 +1 concept

Is fcgi + balancer functionally equivalent to third-party fcgi
solutions except for the capability of those other solutions of
managing the fastcgi application processes?

Is it better at anything than those solutions, other than that we know
who to blame if it breaks?

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Sep 7, 2006, at 12:39 PM, Paul Querna wrote:

> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
>> the 2.2.x distro?
>
> I personally would like to get the local-process spawning done  
> first, or has everyone pretty much given up on ever doing that?
>

I think the energy on that aspect has kind of dwindled...
but a possibility of backporting to 2.2.x might
cause some people to get re-energized :)

> Otherwise, I guess I'm a -0. I kind of want to have things worth  
> releasing in trunk, so we could in theory (ha, ha, ha, ha!) do a  
> 2.4 branch in 6-10 months.
>
> -Paul
>

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

On 9/7/06, Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
> > the 2.2.x distro?
>
> I personally would like to get the local-process spawning done first, or
> has everyone pretty much given up on ever doing that?

I don't personally plan on working on it anytime soon, although I'd be
more than happy to look at patches implementing it if they were to
magically show up on this list someday.

-garrett

Re: fcgi proxy module to 2.2.x?

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Topic for discussion: Add the FCGI proxy module to
> the 2.2.x distro?

I personally would like to get the local-process spawning done first, or 
has everyone pretty much given up on ever doing that?

Otherwise, I guess I'm a -0. I kind of want to have things worth 
releasing in trunk, so we could in theory (ha, ha, ha, ha!) do a 2.4 
branch in 6-10 months.

-Paul