Talk:FastCGI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Named Pipes in "Implementation Details[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the support of named pipes mentioned in *Implementation Details*? I'm interested in the documentation of this feature and I just can't find documentation.

At the end of the paragraph containing "named pipes" there is a reference. I searched that document and found nothing about named pipes.

So to be clear: I'm not challenging the fact, but I'd love to see a reference so I could read more. Typical searching is turning up nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.111.18.150 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pipe" and "Fifo" are mentioned numerous times in the source code however I can't immediately see any reference to named pipes. Those would be accessed by the open() syscall, the same as applies to ordinary files, so it's hard to spot which such calls relate to named pipes. A cursory inspection of the code suggests that socketpairs and/or pairs of anonymous pipes are used to communicate between the master process and its workers.
The phrase "either a Unix domain socket, a named pipe, or a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection" is quite problematic:
  1. "Unix domain socket" and "Transmission Control Protocol" are not mutually exclusive. "TCP" provides a bidirectional streaming connection that can run on several transmission protocols including IPv4, IPv6, and "Unix Domain" sockets; a pipe is similar but only provides a unidirectional streaming connection.
  2. The "Unix Domain" (PF_UNIX/AF_UNIX) was renamed to "Local Domain" (PF_LOCAL/AF_LOCAL) more than 30 years ago.
Better phrasing would be along the lines of "both named pipes and TCP sockets using any available transport (superscript reference: including at least AF_LOCAL, AF_INET, and AF_INET6)." Martin Kealey (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Rethinking of CGI"?[edit]

"FastCGI' is a rethinking of CGI providing better scalability."

I agree the original wording was misleading, but the word "rethinking" does really sit well when refering to a standardised protocol. I like the way it is described on cryp.to: "FastCGI is a variation of the CGI interface". Let me know if you have a problem with that or can conjure a better phrase. Jayvdb 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FastCGI's resurgence[edit]

We need to provide some concrete evidence to support our assertion that FastCGI has enjoyed something of a resurgence (indeed we really should provide a reference that supports our "FastCGI: the wilderness years" assertion too). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know we really need a source. I wrote that based on my own observations, like a few blogs (example). The only numbers I can find is in Security Space's web server survey, but doesn't appear to show any sudden surge. Numbers for FastCGI will probably be hard to find. That survey only lists Apache modules, and the page is only for 'mod_fastcgi' (only Apache 1?). On my Apache 2 server here, mod_fcgid doesn't add a signature to the 'Server:' line. There are also other web servers using FastCGI, like LigHTTPD and Zeus, and I don't know if there's a good way of figuring out if they're using FastCGI either.
Probably the only reliable thing to go on is the appearance of frameworks using/allowing FastCGI, e.g the ones mentioned in the article - Catalyst, RoR, and Django. --Imroy 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence "later years have seen a resurgence in interest" is hard to verify and I'll remove it from the article. Please revert my edit if you feel that this information was important. - 83.254.215.231 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connection handling[edit]

I removed all references to one connection per request since that's not always the case. Would mentioning that the protocol allows multiplexing multiple simultaneous requests over one connection be too much detail? Bo Lindbergh 14:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds worthwhile. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FastCGI and Mediawiki[edit]

Not to go off topic but can anyone comment on if mediawiki software should use FastCGI or not? T0lk 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FastCGI and web application portability[edit]

The sentence "FastCGI has enabled web application portability; in contrast, applications developed for embedded interpreters (such as mod_python) are often tightly bound to the Apache API" looks blatantly false to me, and should be removed. AFAIK any application written in PHP/Python/Perl will on Apache, IIS and any other supported web server, either using an interpreter compiled within the server, a module/dll, or CGI. It's only the module that is tightly bound to the webserver (but CGI, of course) not the application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.134.39 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FastCGI and Java[edit]

It looks like the resurgence of FastCGI might be attributable to more people going on shared hosting services and they limit the kind of applications you can host directly. But it's strange how divided the community is. While PHP and Python and Ruby on Rails seem to all embrace FastCGI, the only Java implementation I can find dates from 1996 and is incomplete and not multi-threaded. It seems like there should be FCGI Connectors for JETTY and Tomcat such that one could run Java based services on shared hosting environments. But such a thing is not there. If anyone has heard of this, please comment here. Else I'll have to do this myself. Gschadow (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matreshka link[edit]

I have removed the link to the added by IP 109.165.113.58 to Project matreshka. This a small and relatively unknown software project, and not notable in WP terms. The fact that supports a FastCGI framework is not sufficient to deserve a link in Wikipedia. If we were to list every project and application that supported FastCGI, then this would be a very long article! -- TerryE (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FastCGI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FastCGI. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FastCGI&oldid=1207187645"