Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.

David Bear schrieb: > > > On 12/10/05, *Tino Wildenhain* <[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: > > > > >

Re: [Zope] Re: why will FastCGI not be supported in the Future.

On 12/10/05, Tino Wildenhain <[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

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

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

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

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 m

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 rea

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 see

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

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