On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What was the reason to import mod_fcgi again? Wasn't the ETA of >> mod_proxy_fcgi too high? > > mod_fcgid was imported because it was > > * widely used > * not actively maintained > * httpd developers were willing to adopt it > > I felt that it was a nice addition particularly because it had a > different approach to this important problem space compared with > mod_proxy_fcgi.
What advantages does fcgid have over proxy_fcgi (except being ready)? >> >>> In the interim, is mod_fastcgi really that bad? >> >> I assume mod_fcgi wasn't developed without proper reason. > > So do I. (FWIW, I've put a lot of time into mod_fcgid and expect to > continue doing so in the future.) > > The situation at hand seems to be > > * mod_proxy_fcgi promises to meet those requirements but falls short at > present > * mod_fcgid doesn't even try > * mod_fastcgi implements at least some of those requirements and is mature mod_fcgid isn't in 2.2, right? So what's the plan for 2.4? Have both of them? Or is mod_proxy_fcgi expected to be not ready for 2.4? Olaf
