Re: FPM RFC

2010/3/23 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>: > hi Tony, > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Antony Dovgal <tony@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). As far as I know, It's not been tested on windows. It depends on libevent which is available for windows, so porting fpm to windows should not be a big deal (technicaly I mean, it'll maybe take some time). I'm not a windows dev specialist, I'm maybe missing a point somewhere. > > 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 > >