Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
David Bear schrieb: On 12/10/05, *Tino Wildenhain* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 09:39 + schrieb Chris Withers: Dieter Maurer wrote: The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI: It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended mod_proxy way each time opens a new connection. Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient. Show me some evidence proving that fcgi or mod_proxy is the significant limiting performance factor in a setup involving zope and I'll take this seriously ;-) The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header and environment data from zope to apache, which is kinda limited with mod_proxy. (Think alternative authentication, ssl ) This was my reason for going with fastcgi instead of modproxy. I wanted zope to also log the http header data from the client. I want to have zope make some decisions based on the user agent. If modproxy can preserve ALL the request headers that I suppose I can use it. I somewhat understand fastcgi. I don't understand everything mod-proxy does... (well, its more magical than fastcgi) mod_proxy passes all relevent headers. Even user-agent. But serious web development should never try to depend on the useragent string. (it can and will be faked - and you will have a hard time to know all possible user-agents out there (I occassionally browse as google - you would be surpriced what you see :)) The only hard part is ssl-client certificate or other apache side auth information. Auth-headers (basic auth) are of course passed. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
Tino Wildenhain wrote: The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header and environment data from zope to apache, which is kinda limited with mod_proxy. (Think alternative authentication, ssl ) Indeed, and it's funny that the guy complaining was complaining about performance rather than this, which seems like quite a reasonable justification for keeping FCGI support. Of course, it still doesn't change the fact that no-one knows how /wants to maintain it ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 09:39 + schrieb Chris Withers: Dieter Maurer wrote: The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI: It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended mod_proxy way each time opens a new connection. Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient. Show me some evidence proving that fcgi or mod_proxy is the significant limiting performance factor in a setup involving zope and I'll take this seriously ;-) The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header and environment data from zope to apache, which is kinda limited with mod_proxy. (Think alternative authentication, ssl ) Tino. ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
... The funny thing is - performance isnt really the pro of fcgi over http. Its really more about transporting header and environment data from zope to apache, which is ^^ actually I meant apache to zope. I go and get some coffee... Tino ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
Dieter Maurer wrote: The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI: It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended mod_proxy way each time opens a new connection. Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient. Show me some evidence proving that fcgi or mod_proxy is the significant limiting performance factor in a setup involving zope and I'll take this seriously ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
Chris Withers wrote at 2005-12-5 07:51 +: Andrew Milton wrote: If there's noone around who can maintain it, then just say that. Don't say there's 'a better way', because I can guarantee you the people using FCGI are using it for a reason, I haven't seen anyone come up with real justification for using FCGI... The original poster explained his wish to retain FCGI: It reuses an existing connection between Apache and Zope while (he thinks and I might believe it) the recommended mod_proxy way each time opens a new connection. Thus, FastCGI might be more efficient. -- Dieter ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
Andrew Milton wrote: If there's noone around who can maintain it, then just say that. Don't say there's 'a better way', because I can guarantee you the people using FCGI are using it for a reason, I haven't seen anyone come up with real justification for using FCGI... I can imagine a pretty big set of people running Zope via FCGI who are not running Apache.. I can also imagine that magical code fairies fight with magical code trolls to the death to decide what pieces of code stay and which pieces go. Uh? I'm not sure whether to ask for some of what you're on or just run away screaming ;-) Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
--On 5. Dezember 2005 07:51:17 + Chris Withers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Milton wrote: If there's noone around who can maintain it, then just say that. Don't say there's 'a better way', because I can guarantee you the people using FCGI are using it for a reason, I haven't seen anyone come up with real justification for using FCGI... FCGI is deprecated effective Zope 2.9. -aj pgpMOEEV52pNP.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
[Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Milton wrote: +---[ Andreas Jung ]-- | | Effective from Zope 2.9 I marked FCGI as deprecated - both in the | documentation and through a deprecation warning in the sources. Please note | that it does not mean that the FCGI might go away automatically in the | future. This is basically a reminder for people using FCGI that there is a | better way (in our opinion) to run Zope under Apache than using FCGI. This of course assumes the entire world runs Apache. How big do you imagine the set is of people running Zope via FastCGI who are *not* running Apache as the front end? Now how big is the intersection of that set with the set of folks who have (and will use) commit access to Zope? The real issue from Andreas' point of view is that *nobody* who helps maintain Zope also knows and uses FastCGI; *he* used to be the person who did know it (per http://www.fastcgi.com/), but no longer. Without such a person or persons, Zope cannot really claim to support FastCGI at all. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDkFtB+gerLs4ltQ4RAo2qAKDTUprNSpcaoiCglQY9brm8mp06NgCeKtkf WeXQcLjwdtGHJs1LoOO3R60= =SiZt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.
+---[ Tres Seaver ]-- | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- | Hash: SHA1 | | Andrew Milton wrote: | +---[ Andreas Jung ]-- | | | | Effective from Zope 2.9 I marked FCGI as deprecated - both in the | | documentation and through a deprecation warning in the sources. Please note | | that it does not mean that the FCGI might go away automatically in the | | future. This is basically a reminder for people using FCGI that there is a | | better way (in our opinion) to run Zope under Apache than using FCGI. | | This of course assumes the entire world runs Apache. | | How big do you imagine the set is of people running Zope via FastCGI who | are *not* running Apache as the front end? Now how big is the | intersection of that set with the set of folks who have (and will use) | commit access to Zope? | | The real issue from Andreas' point of view is that *nobody* who helps | maintain Zope also knows and uses FastCGI; *he* used to be the person | who did know it (per http://www.fastcgi.com/), but no longer. | | Without such a person or persons, Zope cannot really claim to support | FastCGI at all. My issue isn't with the loss of FCGI (although I know a few hosting companies that might be upset at that, perhaps you can scare them into funding its maintainence d8). It's with the way that there is 'a real issue' and a 'made up justification'. If there's noone around who can maintain it, then just say that. Don't say there's 'a better way', because I can guarantee you the people using FCGI are using it for a reason, and there isn't a better way for them. P.S. I can imagine a pretty big set of people running Zope via FCGI who are not running Apache.. I can also imagine that magical code fairies fight with magical code trolls to the death to decide what pieces of code stay and which pieces go. -- Andrew Milton [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
