[cgiwrap-users] RE: Adding fastcgi support to cgiwrap...

[Rob S. <ro...@ch...>]

> Ah, you're figuring to use it as a replacement for suexec. That's
> not quite
> what I was thinking. One of the benefits of cgiwrap is that it is server
> independent. (Not that anyone would ever want to use anything other than
> apache of course....) I was wondering if it would be reasonable
> to put fcgi
> support into cgiwrap, not add cgiwrap support to mod_fcgi.

It would not, in my opinion, make alot of sense to put FastCGI support into
cgiwrap.  The applications that it invokes would still have to support
FastCGI, unless you grew cgiwrap into a persistent application server.  The
language independence that cgiwrap and FastCGI support would be difficult to
address (without having to exec the application on each call which is a
significant advantage provided by FastCGI).  Doing this for one or more
languages would be feasible, but you'd have to build that support into
cgiwrap.  Bottom line is it would be doing far more than its stated purpose
today.

Making the changes to mod_fastcgi I will proceed with.  A wrapper is a
wrapper from my view.

> As long as it is passed a reasonable set of environment
> variables, it should
> work ok. The problem is that people do not access cgiwrap scripts through
> the document root. They access them via PATH_INFO added to cgiwrap call.

How exactly is this a problem?  I don't understand.

--robs