On 19/07/2006, at 2:06 AM, Perrin Harkins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 00:24 +1000, Justin Hawkins wrote:
>> I like the idea of getting this to work neatly - separating each
>> mason app into it's own little process(es) communicating via FastCGI
>> would be a big improvement over Apache and mod_perl for me.
>
> Nothing against Lighttpd, which is a cool project, but if anyone wants
> to do this with apache, they can. There is more support work going
> into
> mod_fastcgi (FastCGI for apache) now, and you can also just run a
> mod_perl for each app and proxy to them with mod_proxy. I usually do
> the latter, since I run a reverse proxy in front anyway for the static
> stuff.
Yes I understand that.
I guess the main motivation to do this is that that stuff is kind of
unwieldy to setup, especially for a development environment. Using
FastCGI I know I'm not backing myself into a corner - if I need to I
can move to some other web server setup, with minimal difficulty, as
long as it supports FastCGI.
- Justin
--
Justin Hawkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Mason-users mailing list
Mason-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mason-users
