hi Tony,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Antony Dovgal <t...@daylessday.org> wrote:
>> Does it really need to be separate SAPI? I mean, just replace the old
>> sapi/cgi
>> with it? Keep the name 'cgi' though. :)
>
> I don't see any need to touch sapi/cgi at all.
> Keeping both CGI and FastCGI in one SAPI leads to a nasty code mess with lots
> of
> "if (fcgi_is_fastcgi()) {" as you can now see in cgi_main.c.
Not sure to follow, are you suggesting to consider FPM as the
sapi/cgi's fastcgi replacement? As Jani is suggesting.
> sapi/fpm and sapi/cgi now have quite different codebase as we've dropped some
> stuff
> not pertinent to FastCGI (there might be some leftovers, I'll deal with them
> later).
By the way, how portable is it? I don't think it has been tested on
windows (some of the key features are not necessary with IIS/FCGI as
they do it already but could be for other web servers).
I would suggest to keep it as a separate sapi for now, or forever if it works.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
