Re: PCGI - what's it do
I think the purpose of PCGI has already been made apparent. I wanted to comment that I think it is far from obsolete. There are significant reasons for wanting to run zope and apache in combination, and PCGI is very desirable in such cases. Reasons for this range from support of legacy CGI or PHP applications, to the need to maximize performance on large static objects (for which I find zope performance is still not very impressive). Greg
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 07:45, Gregory Dudek wrote:
I think the purpose of PCGI has already been made apparent.
I wanted to comment that I think it is far from obsolete.
You may feel that there are still cases where PCGI is useful. But it isn't actively maintained and isn't slated to remain a part of standard Zope. It's deprecated for sure, but call it what you will.
There are significant reasons for wanting to run zope and apache in combination,
This isn't a special case. IMO, you should *always* put something in front of Zope in a production environment.
and PCGI is very desirable in such cases.
But not, apparently, the first choice of most people who set up services in this way. YMMV, of course.
Reasons for this range from support of legacy CGI or PHP applications
Apache does this without any help from Zope.
, to the need to maximize performance on large static objects (for which I find zope performance is still not very impressive).
Agreed. That's why I serve static objects directly from Apache whenever possible/practical. It's quite easy to set up Apache to serve certain directories from the filesystem and hand off everything else to Zope. FWIW, Dylan
There are significant reasons for wanting to run zope and apache in combination,
This isn't a special case. IMO, you should *always* put something in front of Zope in a production environment.
Just to be explicit for the benefit of the ongoing discussion thread, PCGi is obviously just one option (which I still have reasons for liking personally). Using port 8080 inside a frame is a really ugly one, IMHO, and only suitable if you are really in a rush. Some people might use lynx or otherwise dislike frames, and the direct 8080 port will still be exposed. FastCGI is another option which, I presume, is what Zope 2.7 is implicitly suggesting as the preferred substitute for PCGI (it's been there a long time, of course).
Gregory Dudek wrote:
Just to be explicit for the benefit of the ongoing discussion thread, PCGi is obviously just one option (which I still have reasons for liking personally). Using port 8080 inside a frame is a really ugly one, IMHO, and only suitable if you are really in a rush. Some people might use lynx or otherwise dislike frames, and the direct 8080 port will still be exposed.
That is a really bad idea, no argument there. You do know about using Apache as proxy? See the Zope Book 2.6, Virtual Hosting for more information. This lets you do everything you have mentioned which I believe is what Dylan was refering to. -- Andy McKay ClearWind Consulting http://www.clearwind.ca
On Friday 05 December 2003 01:27 pm, Gregory Dudek wrote:
Using port 8080 inside a frame is a really ugly one, IMHO, and only suitable if you are really in a rush. Some people might use lynx or otherwise dislike frames, and the direct 8080 port will still be exposed.
Not a "rush". A "bind" would be more accurate. Sometimes, you don't have any way to gain control of the httpd.conf file or any other way to configure Apache -- just FTP access, and the people who do have access are utterly unresponsive to your needs. This can happen in certain kinds of organizations, and politics can easily trump technical considerations. ;-) I agree it isn't pretty, but it's the only way I know to make a Zope site accessible from a static website without any access to the web server's configuration. It's just one of those duct tape and chewing gum solutions. ;-) Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
participants (4)
-
Andy McKay -
Dylan Reinhardt -
Gregory Dudek -
Terry Hancock