Re: recently-asked FastCGI questions

Paul Mahoney (ptm@xact.demon.co.uk)
Mon, 10 Jun 1996 07:31:13 +100 (BST)

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 07:31:13 +100 (BST)
From: Paul Mahoney <ptm@xact.demon.co.uk>
To: fastcgi-developers@openmarket.com
Subject: Re: recently-asked FastCGI questions
In-Reply-To: <199606052242.SAA15902@breckenridge.openmarket.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SCO.3.90.960610072326.1523A-100000@xact4.xact.com>

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Mark Brown wrote:
> Q: Why does the FastCGI protocol include a complex feature like
> connection multiplexing that the API can't take advantage of?
> 
> A: The FastCGI protocol is more basic than the current application
> library API.  There will be many application libraries with different
> levels of aspiration.  Some, like the current fcgi_stdio, will be very
> simple and won't fully exploit the protocol.  But others are bound to
> come along that provide a more concurrent API and can take advantage
> of connection multiplexing.  Applications based on the current
> libraries will continue to run without change.

Well I'm interested in developing a C++ Cgi and FastCgi object that will
support multiplexing. Like most I'm very busy so will do this in spare
moments -- I already have the framework outlined in my mind. However, 
there is no point if multiplexing is not implemented at the server end.

Q1. Is multiplexing is not implemented at the server end for the
    Apache server? If not when might it be?

Q2. I'm fond of the "Rogue Wave" tools.h++ foundation class library
    for utility objects like strings, hash dictionaries etc. If I
    were to use them in my objects how many other C++ users would be
    able to make use of my code?

---
Paul Mahoney, X-Act Solutions Limited
smail: Owlsmead, Meads Road, Little Common, Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex TN39 4SY
email: ptm@xact.demon.co.uk ... pmahoney@cix.compulink.co.uk
phone: +44 424 846368