On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 19:56, Ian Bicking wrote: > In fact, what would be really cool is if Pound could be made to connect > via SCGI. I believe it already does some HTTP/1.1 -> HTTP/1.0 > translation, and going that last step to SCGI probably wouldn't be too > hard.
The prime directive for pound seems to be simplicity and security over features. However, they did include a contribution for WebDAV support. It can't hurt to ask. > I was thinking it would be need to have mod_webkit/SCGI support > in some small web server (thttp or something), but really it seems like > Pound would be even better. The only negative is that it's nice to be > able to serve some static content directly without the > AppServer/double-connection overhead. Boa <http://www.boa.org/> seems to be more actively maintained than either pound or thttpd, but I could be wrong. I would be very interested in boa supporting SCGI. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
