[Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.

[David Bear]

On 12/10/05, Tino Wildenhain <tino at wildenhain.de> wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 09:39 +0000 schrieb Chris Withers:
> > Dieter Maurer wrote:
> > > The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI:
> > >
> > >   It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope
> > >   while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended
> > >   "mod_proxy" way each time opens a new connection.
> > >
> > >   Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient.
> >
> > Show me some evidence proving that fcgi or mod_proxy is the significant
> > limiting performance factor in a setup involving zope and I'll take this
> > seriously ;-)
>
> The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of
> fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header
> and environment data from zope to apache, which is
> kinda limited with mod_proxy. (Think alternative
> authentication, ssl )



This was my  reason for going with  fastcgi instead of modproxy. I wanted
zope to also log the http header data from the client. I want to have zope
make some decisions based on the user agent. If modproxy can preserve ALL
the request headers that I suppose I can use it. I somewhat understand
fastcgi. I don't understand everything mod-proxy does... (well, its more
magical than fastcgi)

Tino.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope maillist  -  Zope at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope
> **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
>



--
David Bear
What's the difference between private knowledge and public knowledge?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope/attachments/20051220/2f0c8794/attachment.htm