On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Stefan Adams wrote: > What I love about Mojolicious is that it does everything. But I would > certainly understand the case to not support the ancient CGI. Mojolicious > is a modern framework. Why should it support CGI?
I have an apache config which supports a grab bag of named virtual hosts with different config, and various parts of the URL name space being static content, proxy-pass to different servers running on different ports, and many different CGIs, in different languages, supplied by different developer groups. I doubt that it would be easier done via a single Mojolicious server than by apache, and if it could be, it's not obvious to me how you would do it. The Apache config isn't complex, and wasn't difficult. I don't use suexec so I haven't seen the problem which initiated this thread. Routing works properly for my CGIs. --- Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mojolicious" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
