|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"Rethinking of CGI"?
"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)
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)
- 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)
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)
FastCGI and Mediawiki
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)
FastCGI and web application portability
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
FastCGI and Java
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)
I have removed the link to the added by IP 126.96.36.199 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)