Re: is fastcgi dead? say it ain't so

freeform (freeform@wired.com)
Tue, 20 May 1997 09:53:16 -0700 (PDT)

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: freeform <freeform@wired.com>
To: fastcgi-developers@OpenMarket.com
Subject: Re: is fastcgi dead? say it ain't so
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970520104520.0068c09c@mail.atlantic.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.BSI.3.95.970520094702.9494C-100000@get.wired.com>



On Tue, 20 May 1997, Jonathan Roy wrote:

> 
>   Ah, that's a bummer. We use FastCGI a lot and will continue to do so. If
> OpenMarket doesn't maintain the Apache/perl FastCGI stuff, maybe others
> will eventually take over. So far we've fixed the Solaris accept() problem
> and added ./configure style support to make the correct fcgi_config.h file,
> as well as fixed a missing unlink() problem in mod_fastcgi.c that could
> cause the fastcgi parent process to die. Both have been sent to the list
> (although I haven't seen the big fix appear from the list yet).
> 
woah!
i'm on this list and did not see those patches.
i'm most interested in any developments with the apache/perl fastcgi stuff!
would you mind sending those on again?


>   I can only hope that whomever maintains FastCGI at OpenMarket these days
> will apply the patches, and release a new FCGI perl module (.29 or
> something), and a new mod_fastcgi.c so others who aren't on this list can
> benefit from the fixes.
> 
right on!
lets get those fixes rolling.


>   Regardless of OM's support, we'll keep using FastCGI, and will end up
> fixing/improving things as needed if noone else does so first. ;)
> 
this is great news.
glad to hear it.


{freeform - bianca.com}