Apache 2.0 proxy module scheme handler for FastCGI protocole. Is a complete rewrite of Apache Modile of FastCGI protocol. This rewrite are dedicated to external FastCGI server.
The project has migrated on GitHub here :
https://github.com/ZenProjects/Apache-Proxy-FastCGI-Module
The project Documentation are here :
http://zenprojects.github.io/Apache-Proxy-FastCGI-Module/
Features
- Apache Module
- Proxy FastCGI
Categories
CGI ScriptsLicense
Apache License V2.0Follow mod_proxy_fcgi
You Might Also Like
Our Free Plans just got better! | Auth0 by Okta
You asked, we delivered! Auth0 is excited to expand our Free and Paid plans to include more options so you can focus on building, deploying, and scaling applications without having to worry about your secuirty. Auth0 now, thank yourself later.
Rate This Project
Login To Rate This Project
User Reviews
-
Building this module is problematic. I'm using Amazon Linux It uses makepp, not make - you need to find and download makepp to get started. IMHO, putting every user to the trouble of downloading a new tool when they all have make, is not proportionate. The makefile for mod_proxy_fcgi contains two fields you must set, one which points to apxs2 and the other which specifies the location of the apache development headers; you must then figure out what apxs2 *is* and where to get the development headers from. Turns out apxs2 is actually called apxs on Amazon Linux, so a simple rename will do; I think it comes from the module "apr", but I am not sure. The makefile in its original form points to a single apache directory, "/usr/include/apache2". In fact, this needs to point to *two* directories, "/usr/include/httpd" and "/usr/include/apr-1". I think the former comes from apache-devel and the latter from "apr-devel". However, something is broken, because when compiling this module, I see apr.h trying to include every platform-specific header file (i64, x86-64, ppc, mips, etc), rather than just x86-64. There needs to be some hints in a readme as to where and what dependencies are and beyond that, given that build appears logically rather than merely physically broken, I cannot yet say. Finally, note that the review values (0 to 5), when not specified (I cannot comment on design or support, since I've used neither) default to 0, which is misleading; and that Sourceforge remove all formatting from reviews so this review is now one single paragraph, which impairs readability. I give SourceForge 2/5 for their review facility.