RE: [cgiwrap-users] real hosting and cgiwrap

[Neulinger, N. <nn...@um...>]

Real simple - the example you give is very narrow and limited-experience
in nature.=20

Does mod_cgiwrap or suexec work on cern? netscape server? tinyhttpd?
ncsa httpd? or any one of dozens of other http servers? No, of course
not.=20

Does cgiwrap? You bet it does. If the server supports the standard CGI
spec, it will be 100% compatible with cgiwrap. I show approximately 40+
different HTTP servers on freshmeat. At one time or another, and many
still, cgiwrap has been used with most of the mainstream web servers,
and some of the uncommon ones.

Do you have to change your syntax or user procedures to use on a
different server with cgiwrap? No - same syntax will work on ALL
platforms. Even on NT if they had setuid() support.

Yes, you can make cgiwrap apache-specific, and turn it into suexec, but
I have no intention of making that the default. I personally don't see
much point in using cgiwrap as suexec, but if I were doing it that way,
I'd just use mod_rewrite. It's alot cleaner than most of the approaches
that are being used.=20

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nn...@um...
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marten Lehmann [mailto:le...@va...]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:32 PM
> To: cgi...@li...
> Subject: [cgiwrap-users] real hosting and cgiwrap
>=20
>=20
> Hello,
>=20
> I'm now going to say something about cgiwrap, I wanted to=20
> about it long=20
> time ago: cgiwrap is completely unusable for common needs!
>=20
> Have you ever seen a major webhosting provider like verio.net,=20
> schlund.de or whichever you know, that requires their=20
> customers to call=20
> their scripts through strange addresses like=20
> /~user/cgiwrap/scriptname.pl? I can tell you: No. The common case is,=20
> that static files and cgi-scripts are mixed up in the same=20
> directory and=20
> should be treated like that, too. If I have an image in=20
> /icon.gif and a=20
> script in /test.pl, I want to call /test.pl like I call=20
> /icon.gif, but I=20
> have to call it through /~user/cgiwrap/test.pl. Also, noone wants to=20
> enter "'/usr/bin/php" in the first line of each php-script and set it=20
> executable. Why all that crap?
>=20
> I was happy to find=20
> http://steven.haryan.to/mod_cgiwrap/mod_cgiwra> p.html
> Why=20
> can't evolve cgiwrap as almost everyone needs it:=20
> hidden as=20
> apache-module. Why has it to be a separate binary? Or while it is a=20
> separate binary: Why can't the appropriate apache-module not be=20
> included? The documentation about how to use cgiwrap with=20
> apache is very=20
> lousy and as far as I can tell I had problems with=20
> POST-operations with=20
> AddHandler/AddAction combination.
>=20
> The best for all users would be a combination of a cgiwrap, which=20
> doesn't look for the user via the url, but through the=20
> file-uid of the=20
> cgi-script which is called, mod_cgiwrap and mod_phpcgiwrap.
>=20
> Regards
> Marten Lehmann
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> cgiwrap-users mailing list
> cgi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cgiwrap-users
>=20