On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Natacha Porté <nata...@instinctive.eu>wrote:
> 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? > My only point was that FastCGI is useful for apps which have their state in some form of context object which fastcgi can initialize and re-use in a request loop, and fossil proper can't do do that. Except for its server mode, its internal state is built around a "do one thing then exit" model, which doesn't play well with fastcgi. i.e. my point was that any attempt to use fastcgi with fossil is, IMO, doomed to failure or (at best) mediocre results. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
