On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Marcos Douglas wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Michael Van Canneyt >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Marcos Douglas wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Currently we're deploying a webapp that uses fpweb, FastCGI and runs as >>>>> a >>>>> windows service app. Although the latter is more of a necessity than a >>>>> voluntary choice. >>>>> >>>>> The fastcgi approach makes it easy to debug. >>>> >>>> FastCGI or CGI gateway? >>> >>> FastCGI. >>> >>> But using the gateway shouldn't make any difference: you debug the >>> fastcgi, >>> not the gateway :-) >> >> But if you want to update the application you will have to leave the >> application unavailable. >> With CGI gateway you can redirect the flow to another server. > > In my opinion that is pointless and serves no useful purpose except maybe in > a few trivial cases. > > The reason you use FastCGI is that you can keep things in > memory during the session of the user. (DB connection, transactions and > possibly complete form states) > > By switching to another FastCGI instance, you loose all this session > information: you get the same effect as stopping and restarting fastCGI, > except maybe a couple of failed requests. It's not worth the overhead IMHO.
You rigth about the overhead... And why you said: "(for the record, I use module mod_fastcgi, not the mod_fcgid module)" There are many differences between them? Thanks, Marcos Douglas -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
