Yes, split process control from mod_fcgid, merge proxy_fcgi(with load balance) and mod_fcgid(with authXX support) is a good idea, admins can use httpd as process manager, or 3rd party process managers as they like. But don't just make a patch to make mod_fcgid support TCP/IP, it's ugly...
> > > Hi, guys > > A company need a "TCP/IP patch of mod_fcgid or alternative", and > > will pay for it, anyone interested? I really like to take it but I > > don't have too much time... Anyone interested please reply to me and > > I will forward the email address of them. > > > > ... > > Neti only listens on TCP/IP socket, it assumes both an authorizer > > role and a responder role in the Fast CGI request. Here's the 3 > > candidate Apache modules to interface Neti: > > ... > > > > 2. Mod_proxy_fcgi: this module supports TCP socket, it can connect to > > Neti, but it doesn't support authorizer role. So in the first FCGI > > request, it forwards the request to Neti as a responder instead of an > > authorizer, Neti cannot simply let it through without properly > > authorizing it first, thus the request fails; > > > > 3. Mod_fcgid: this module supports authorizer role while doesn't > > support TCP connection. We cannot confirm its authorizer role since > > it doesn't even connect to Neti due to lack of TCP; > > > > So our choice is between either adding authorizer role to > > mod_proxy_fcgi or adding TCP/IP to mod_fcgid. > > > > We’re really willing to pay to have this project done, I mean either > > adding proxy to mod_fcgid or adding authorizer to mod_proxy_fcgi. Are > > you willing to work on this with reward or do you know anyone else > > who’s interested in doing so with pay, for example, author of > > mod_proxy_fcgi? (I cannot find his name) > > No cycles myself at this instant, but it seems overtime to break apart > the mod_fcgid process-control so that it can then stack on top of a > single mod_proxy_fcgi communications pipe, dispatched through different > fcgi-stream methods (including child process stdio), including the > various authn/authz roles. It would take more time to refactor it in > this way, but would get rid of any discrepancies between proxy_fcgi > and fcgid and serve as a good excuse to draw the remaining mod_fcgid > development back into trunk/, now that fcgid is generally sufficient > for 2.2 users. > > >
