David Bear schrieb:
On 12/10/05, *Tino Wildenhain* <tino@wildenhain.de <mailto: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)
mod_proxy passes all relevent headers. Even user-agent. But serious web development should never try to depend on the useragent string. (it can and will be faked - and you will have a hard time to know all possible user-agents out there (I occassionally browse as google - you would be surpriced what you see :)) The only hard part is ssl-client certificate or other apache side auth information. Auth-headers (basic auth) are of course passed.