on Sunday 11 August 2013 at 06:37, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 12:43:24PM +0200, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:07:41 -0600 > > Chad Perrin <c...@apotheon.net> wrote: > > > > > Dr. Hipp's series of suggestions have, of course, also been informative > > > for me, and while I do intend to expand capabilities to the point where > > > a separate webserver (probably nginx) is involved for some purposes as > > > described in one of his replies, for now I just need something quick, > > > effective, and secure to get some projects underway. > > > > Nginx doesn't support cgi, and as its developers says, it will never have > > cgi support. > > . . . but you can use fastcgi with nginx. Is that not good enough for > Fossil?
I'm afraid I'm missing something in this FastCGI discussion starting from this post. What is the benefit of using FastCGI instead of (existing) HTTP between nginx and a long-lived fossil process? Or instead of HTTP between nginx and a inetd-spawned one-shot fossil process? Natacha Porté
pgpqOa27f4Y37.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
