Having only ever used Zope-behind-PCGI myself, if we drop it, what would be the prevailing approach for running Zope behind Apache? Has everyone switched to FastCGI (or Quixote's SCGI) but me? Be aware that there are Zope-specific patches (some of which I provided) in the version of PCGI that Zope ships with, so you can't refer everyone to the non-Zope version of PCGI available elsewhere on the web. The patches relate to error handling and meaningful reporting, not core functionality. -Jeff Dieter Maurer wrote:

Jim Fulton wrote at 2003-2-13 11:30 -0500:

...

I'm wondering how PCGI should be supported in Zope moving forward. Do we still need it?

I would prefer to drop it (to reduce complexity).

I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that mod_proxy was hard to configure correctly to pass all headers, particularly in complex virtual hosting scenarios. But I'm no Apache expert. And I thought that mod_redirect added overhead to every request, doing the redirect cycle via the browser. It also exposed the port 8000-based Zope to direct access, which some admin's might not want. But mostly I thought PCGI (and FastCGI) was the preferred way, since it is covered in detail in Zope's doc/WEBSERVER.TXT and neither mod_proxy nor mod_redirect are mentioned in there. ;-) I just figured PCGI was cleaner and let me delegate responsibility to each hosting client, to manage their own CGI-BIN stuff w/o access to Apache's config files.. So if we drop PCGI, we'll need an action item to rework that file and perhaps ZopeBook et. al. -Jeff Tim Hoffman wrote:

I have always run Zope behind Apache utilising mod_proxy.

I have to admit I never tried or really even evaluated pcgi, and don't build it when I install Zope.

Is there a benefit of pcgi over using mod_proxy ?

Guido van Rossum wrote:

AFAIK most people use Apache's mod_redirect to a Zope HTTP server running at (e.g.) port 8000. No additional software needed.

On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 09:16, Jeff Rush wrote:

...

Having only ever used Zope-behind-PCGI myself, if we drop it, what would be the prevailing approach for running Zope behind Apache? Has everyone switched to FastCGI (or Quixote's SCGI) but me?

Andy McKay wrote:

Unfortunately thats more a matter of documentation inertia more than anything. There are more articles on Zope.org about PCGI as well simply because it has been around the longest, although almost everyone I know runs through mod_proxy nowadays.

I'd actually say it's because PCGI is the hardest to get working right ;-) mod_proxy and mod_rewrite work wonderfully for us. Never heard of mod_rewrite forcing redirects at the browser and all our 8xxx ports are blocked at the firewall... I'd vote to see PCGI vanish. cheers, Chris

Romain Slootmaekers wrote:

it's only 5 lines in your virtual host configuration.

Did you remember to block VirtualHost{Base,Host} and _vh_* ? Actually there's a solid argument to be made for blocking any request with "/_" in the path_info. -- Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/ "...thats the metaphorical equivalent of flopping your wedding tackle into a lion's mouth and flicking his lovespuds with a wet towel, pure insanity..." -Rimmer

Jeff Rush wrote:

I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that mod_proxy was hard to configure correctly to pass all headers, particularly in complex virtual hosting scenarios.

No, that's when it's easy. :) The onlyhard part is getting the original IP adress into the logs, and most people simply ignore this and use Apaches logs instead.

It also exposed the port 8000-based Zope to direct access, which some admin's might not want.

Not necessarily. Often you set up 8000-ports to only be accessible on an internal IP-adress. Besides, it's usually a good idea to be able to go directly when Apache gets weird. :)

But mostly I thought PCGI (and FastCGI) was the preferred way, since it is covered in detail in Zope's doc/WEBSERVER.TXT and neither mod_proxy nor mod_redirect are mentioned in there. ;-)

Well, that's just Zopes normal standard of documentation, aint it. :) I happily submit my Zope+Apache how-to for scrutiny by experts to be included (and hopefully even expanded) in the docs instead of the CGI docs if PCGI is removed from the standard distribution. :)

Jeff Rush wrote:

Having only ever used Zope-behind-PCGI myself, if we drop it, what would be the prevailing approach for running Zope behind Apache?

RewriteRules, and to a lesser extent, ProxyPass, has almost completely replaced any CGI method with Apache. However, I don't know the status with other servers, primarily IIS, so I think it shouldn't be dropped completely.