On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Edgar Frank <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd much rather see effort put into mod_proxy_fcgi to support this use >> case. I wish somebody, perhaps myself, had time to work on it. It >> doesn't seem that hard a task. > > Just an idea, I though about - what would you think about pulling > mod_proxy_fcgi up to the FCGI-code base of mod_fcgid? Could be kind of > difficult, as mod_fcgid is maintained separately at the moment, but IMHO > mod_fcgid has a much more sophisticated code in FCGI-communication (e.g. using > own bucket types) and adhering to the CGI standard. > > If, in theory, both were sitting on the same code base, any fixes/changes/ > enhancements in FCGI handling would affect and improve mod_proxy_fcgi, too. > This way, mod_proxy_fcgi would be the superior choice for externally spawned > workers (where dynamic worker selection really starts to make any sense) while > mod_fcgid cares about local workers and process management - and every module > would serve its very own purpose. > > Okay, this has some downsides, too, like increased testing overhead, but in > general I like the idea. > > I would be glad to hear your thoughts.
In an ideal situation you don't have two separate modules. So don't go that way. ;) Spawning is nice but IMO not that important and in an ideal case you might want to run the backend with a different user ID than the frontend. Olaf
