FastCGI

[steve <ia...@gmail.com>]

Is Apache considering including a FastCGI module? Apache includes a
CGI module, but not FastCGI. And the FastCGI module that is available
does not compile with Apache 2.2 (yes, I know the ways around that).
One of the advantages of Lighttpd is that it has built-in support for
FastCGI, including load balancing, and its simple configuration.

As FastCGI is necessary for our setup, and Apache 2.2 doesn't support
it without both an abandoned third party module and a fourth-party
patch, one can imagine how the higher-ups take issue with the setup.

Thank you.
-steve

Re: FastCGI

[steve <ia...@gmail.com>]

> Seriously, that would be great, now all you need is someone to
> actually work on it...

Well, I looked doing it just so I could track down some odd behavior
that occurs under FastCGI on rare occasions. The current code would
need a few changes to the source:

1. Compile on Apache 2.2 [easy]
2. Rename the module (so that someone can also install the FastCGI
module not knowing that they are basically the same). [easy]
3. Setup defaults for a PHP installation, change the parameter names,
and remove those that aren't relevant. [easy]
4. Change the configure and make stuff to work the php way (working
with PECL, maybe later as integrated into base install of PHP). [no
clue]
5. See if Apache 2.2 has fixed shortcoming that the author thinks
exist in AP2, and adjust the code accordingly. [hard for me, and not
really needed anyhow]

At the end of the day, it doesn't do me much good to make a php module
that works with both windows and unix, and both process based and
thread based apache servers. I already have the knowledge on how to
get the FastCGI module configured and working everywhere I need it.

I might find it interesting to do items 1-3, and they aren't too hard.
But I don't get a real benefit, so why dedicate the time?

Its sort of like the Event MPM. Great unfinished idea. Well, that idea
was far better. :) But it disables ssl connections altogether, for
example, and so isn't really useful. I'd just make more of the same.

Re: FastCGI

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

On 2/20/07, steve <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing that 2.4 is a while out... but that is good to hear that
> it will be baseline. Having its own balancer would be a plus as well.
>
> I honestly think that a dedicated version of such a thing just for PHP
> would ease adoption of Apache releases (at least from those whom
> depend on PHP). I think that the whole process/thread issue ought to
> be factored out for PHP people (i.e., they should always use FastCGI,
> but have it managed and setup easily enough that they think it is a
> straight apache module). But I digress...

We anxiously await your patches ;-)

Seriously, that would be great, now all you need is someone to
actually work on it...

-garrett

Re: FastCGI

[steve <ia...@gmail.com>]

I'm guessing that 2.4 is a while out... but that is good to hear that
it will be baseline. Having its own balancer would be a plus as well.

I honestly think that a dedicated version of such a thing just for PHP
would ease adoption of Apache releases (at least from those whom
depend on PHP). I think that the whole process/thread issue ought to
be factored out for PHP people (i.e., they should always use FastCGI,
but have it managed and setup easily enough that they think it is a
straight apache module). But I digress...

-s

On 2/20/07, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, steve <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is Apache considering including a FastCGI module? Apache includes a
> > CGI module, but not FastCGI. And the FastCGI module that is available
> > does not compile with Apache 2.2 (yes, I know the ways around that).
> > One of the advantages of Lighttpd is that it has built-in support for
> > FastCGI, including load balancing, and its simple configuration.
> >
> > As FastCGI is necessary for our setup, and Apache 2.2 doesn't support
> > it without both an abandoned third party module and a fourth-party
> > patch, one can imagine how the higher-ups take issue with the setup.
>
> The trunk version of httpd comes with mod_proxy_fcgi, which does
> provide some level of FastCGI support.
>
> -garrett
>

Re: FastCGI

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

On 2/20/07, steve <ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Apache considering including a FastCGI module? Apache includes a
> CGI module, but not FastCGI. And the FastCGI module that is available
> does not compile with Apache 2.2 (yes, I know the ways around that).
> One of the advantages of Lighttpd is that it has built-in support for
> FastCGI, including load balancing, and its simple configuration.
>
> As FastCGI is necessary for our setup, and Apache 2.2 doesn't support
> it without both an abandoned third party module and a fourth-party
> patch, one can imagine how the higher-ups take issue with the setup.

The trunk version of httpd comes with mod_proxy_fcgi, which does
provide some level of FastCGI support.

-garrett