On 12/10/05, Tino Wildenhain <tino@wildenhain.de> 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?