On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:56:08PM -0800, Quinn Dunkan wrote:
> I gather the reason for SCGI is that FastCGI is too complicated.

We found FastCGI a little unreliable.  Every couple of days or weeks our
site would stop serving dynamic pages.  We tracked the problem down to
the FastCGI process manager.  That's were to complicated part sucked.
We never did figure it out.

> What are the reasons for not using PCGI?

I have to admit that I don't really know the PCGI protocol.  After
looking into it I would say SCGI and PCGI are quite similar.  PCGI seems
to be a little more Python specific and the protocol doesn't seem to be
as well defined.


> The thing I always liked about PCGI was that you didn't have to
> compile and insert modules into apache (and it wasn't
> apache-specific).  Is it too slow?

I haven't gotten around to writing an CGI to SCGI adaptor yet.  It
should be trivial.  Using mod_scgi should give better performance; much
better if the adaptor is written in Python.

> Anyway, I'm sure that a PCGI <-> Quixote link would be easy.  Maybe
> I'll try it out some day if I ever want to distribute anything.

Probably easy.  I don't know what advantage it would give though.

  Neil