+-------[ 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
| > | 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
| > | 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.
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
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -