On 12/10/05, Tino Wildenhain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 07.12.2005, 09:39 +0000 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)

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 )



--
David Bear
What's the difference between private knowledge and public knowledge?
_______________________________________________
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 )

Reply via email to