Re: New httpd-fastcgi virtual package

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Michael Lustfield writes ("Re: New httpd-fastcgi virtual package"):
> Personally, I always recommend uwsgi over any of the avaialable cgi/fastcgi
> servers, such as php-fpm, ruby-fcgi, python-fcgi, etc. When you have uwsgi
> available, and it's capable of handling all those languages, including legacy
> raw-cgi apps, it seems kinda silly to use anything else. ;)

fcgi has a wide variety of glue code, compared to uwsgi, AFAICT.

For example, there is fcgi<->cgi glue in both directions, which works
moderately well.  Also it looks like to use uwsgi you pretty much have
to use their code and buy into their whole application management
framework.

Sometimes that's not what's wanted.

Mind you, I agree that fgci is an unpleasant protocol.

Ian.