Re: Apache FCGI Module

Mark Brown (mbrown@OpenMarket.com)
Thu, 02 May 1996 21:41:20 -0400

Message-Id: <199605030141.VAA16312@breckenridge.openmarket.com>
To: Keith Porterfield <kwp@taliesin.manymedia.com>
Subject: Re: Apache FCGI Module 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 May 1996 13:53:06 PDT."
             <199605022053.NAA25556@taliesin.manymedia.com> 
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 21:41:20 -0400
From: Mark Brown <mbrown@OpenMarket.com>


    What's the plan for the future of the Apache FCGI module?

     - Is this a one-shot deal, or will there be continuing 
       development (a module for Apache 1.1)? 

     - Do you want feedback, bug reports, etc.?

    The perl extension builds flawlessly, but I've had no 
    success with the Apache module using Apache 1.0.5 and
    BSD/OS 2.1 -- there's a bunch of non-portable references
    to members of the FILE structure, which I fixed, but  
    before I go any further trying to track down why it
    still doesn't work, I'd like to get some idea of what 
    future holds for the Apache module.

It is certainly our intention to move the mod_fastcgi module
forward to Apache 1.1.  We have a strong interest in having our
own applications run on the Apache server, given its leadership
in server market share.  We definitely want feedback, patches,
bug reports, etc.

The problems relating to FILE are pretty unfortunate.  This is not
my code but the developer has attempted to do a (mostly) common module
for Apache and NCSA and the use of FILE in Apache has been a real
headache.  Is there a generally understood way to write code
that works both places?

I have gotten feedback from one Apache user who succeeded in making
it work.  He had trouble for awhile, and it turns out the problem
was that his fastcgi programs were installed under cgi-bin,
and the server treated them as CGI.  They worked as advertised
("same Perl runs CGI and FastCGI", etc.) but didn't retain state.

    --mark