Jakub Piotr Cłapa wrote at 06/23/2010 02:35 PM:
On 23.06.10 00:10, synx wrote:
I looked over the FastCGI and SCGI protocols, and concluded that they
weren't much more efficient than a protocol known as HTTP. Why not proxy
your data to a webserver, using apache's proxy module?
I recently looked at FastCGI and came to the same conclusion. To be
honest SCGI is somewhat simpler since it handles most of the
validation and parsing for you. FastCGI is not since it adds much of
it's own boilerplate. FastCGI can be used for some other task than
simple HTTP proxying (e.g. delegating authentication) but AFAIK nobody
is using it.
The main reason not to use FastCGI is that it's a seriously ugly
protocol. :) I had it almost completely implemented in PLT before I
decided that a custom Apache module or HTTP proxying was more sane, and
then I found the almost-too-simple SCGI protocol.
We've had good success with moving a large legacy system to SCGI, and
SCGI is proven by others (Ruby, Python, etc.). That said, HTTP proxying
is better if you want to do *everything* in Racket code, since then your
system is no longer dependent on mod_scgi and scgi.ss. Also, that keeps
you closer to using the PLT Web Server, which is a good place to be the
next time you need to rapidly whip up a new Web service or site or
internal tool or something.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
