2009/4/8 KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com>: > Graham Dumpleton wrote: >> Explain first why using FASTCGI and suexec wouldn't be a better option? > > Thease are limited to cgi applications, so we cannot apply such kind > of restriction on the built-in script languages and references on > static documents (like *.html).
FASTCGI is not restricted to CGI applications. At least in the sense that FASTCGI allows persistent processes rather than one off processes like CGI. FASTCGI bindings are available for many different languages, including scripting languages, so what 'built-in script languages' are you talking about? The suexec mechanism comes into play as it allows FASTCGI processes to run as a different user than Apache process. The only reason for doing what you want in the Apache server child processes is if they need to work directly with the internal Apache C APIs to do stuff. You haven't yet demonstrated that that is what you really need though and why FASTCGI couldn't be used instead. Graham
