> Ivan Ristic, Friday, November 19, 2004 12:42 > > Leif W wrote: > >>Andrew Stribblehill, Thursday, November 18, 2004 07:53 > >> > >>Quoting Ivan Ristic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2004-11-17 17:31:39 GMT): > >> > >>>Paul Querna wrote: > >>> > >>> Are you familiar with FastCGI? My first impression is that most of > >>> what you envision is possible today with FastCGI, or would be > >>> possible with some (small) additional effort. > >> > >>FastCGI is non-free. This solution also copes with things like > >>mod_php and mod_perl being a different user. A Good Thing IMO. > > > > Just to clarify: Which FastCGI are we talking about? There are two > > listed on http://modules.apache.org/ . > > > > There's the (former?) OpenMarket's http://fastcgi.com/ (mod_fastcgi), > > with the unclear license, > > In what sense is the licence unclear?
Unclear in the sense that one person said it wasn't free, and another person said it was ASF compliant, and I couldn't tell the difference after skimming the license quickly. It wasn't abundantly clear at first, so I wasn't making any conclusions. Also in the sense of how it can be used. Free or not, modify or not, incorporate in other things, redistribute incorporated binaries from modified or unmodified sources. The business about using it only for FastCGI implementations is a potential trouble spot. What if someone wanted to make some hybrid module. I'm not a module developer at this point,so I don't know if or when it would make sense to do such a thing. But if I have a fork in one hand and a electrical outlet in the other, I want the right to electrocute myself and see what happens. :) > But even if it is, I think it is worth to reuse the protocol > alone. There are many well-tested FastCGI libraries that support > it on the client side. After skimming the home page, there seemed to be a clear distinction between the code for the module and the protocol specification, where the module code is a reference implementation of the FastCGI protocol. That was my impression. > > which was last released as version 2.4.2 on > > 2003-11-24. Does it still work with Apache httpd 2.0.x? > > Works fine with httpd 2.0.x in my tests (mod_fastcgi 2.4.2, I > didn't try the more recent snapshot). I have the impression that > many people feel FastCGI is dead because there isn't much > activity on the web site. But it seems to me the authors have > just made the protocol (and the Apache module) do what they wanted > it to do. It was my impression that it was probably dead, and as you said, possibly just "complete" or "working", which seems like such an alien concept in free software, where changes and activity are like heartbeats and a pulse. :) > > Does it work with 2.1.x? > > I don't know. When I have time I might try 2.1 from the "new shiny" SVN. > > Then there's http://fastcgi.coremail.cn/ (mod_fcgid), is GPL, which > > implements the FastCGI protocol, and was last released as version 1.0 on > > 2004-09-14. Is this implementation complete, efficient, comparable to > > the original mod_fastcgi? > > Never used that one. The web site does not say what motivated > the developer to produce another implementation. More toys to play with. We now return to our regularly scheduled thread, already in progress. Leif
