On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 03:23:04PM +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> --On 28. November 2005 13:28:20 +0000 Jens Vagelpohl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> >On 28 Nov 2005, at 13:25, Gerhard Schmidt wrote:
> >>>It's a matter of resources, plain and simple. No one has stepped
> >>>forward to support it, so it atrophied. If you think it's a great
> >>>thing to keep, volunteer.
> >>
> >>I would if I had the time and the knowlege. But I don't see a Problem
> >>with the Code right now. As I said i runs here perfectly smooth.
> >
> >"It works" and "is supported" are two different things. "Is  supported"
> >also means there are people who will come forward and help  out when the
> >code breaks or when people ask questions about it. As  you have seen
> >yourself, no one does. The answer is (and will remain,  unless someone
> >volunteers): Use at your own peril.
> I agree. There should be one supported way to achive a goal. In the past we 
> had at least three methods to run Zope (fortunately we kicked PCGI support
> in the past). My suggestion is to deprecate FCGI officially in the docs and 
> through a deprecation warning and to kick it at some time (not necessarily 
> after two release cycles). So people can still use but they should know 
> that they are using a deprecated feature...objections?

Sure I object. Why should perfectly working code be removed. There is 
no alternativ for heavy loaded sites which need integration of apache 
and zope. mod_proxy is no alternativ because it raises the load even 


Gerhard Schmidt       | E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TU-M√ľnchen            |
WWW & Online Services |
Tel: 089/289-25270    |
Fax: 089/289-25257    | PGP-Publickey auf Anfrage 

Attachment: pgpwSrYnShhnN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to