[Mono-dev] FastCGI, was: Silverlight early implementation thoughts.

Marek Habersack grendello at gmail.com
Tue May 8 08:37:56 EDT 2007

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:12:54 +0200, Robert Jordan <robertj at gmx.net> scribbled:

> Hey Marek,
Hey Robert,

> Marek Habersack wrote:
> > 
> > This is still much easier to cope with than mod_mono abrakadabra, IMHO :)
> > Even if some people will consider it to be harder, the configuration above
> > is specific to apache only and with FastCGI we will be able to use any other
> > webserver that supports the protocol. This is, in my eyes, the biggest
> > advantage of having such bridge (in addition to using a standard,
> > well-supported protocol to handle the requests).
> W/out any doubt, fastcgi has a lot of advantages. I don't want to
> criticize it. Just its configuration could be a problem for apache
> newbies, but ...
Apache config is not easy even for people moderately experienced with it :)
FastCGI has more other advantages - tutorials exist how to set up, we don't
have to maintain the module.

> >> Configuring an application-to-mono-process mapping, easily
> >> to achieve with mod_mono, will become a nightmare with FastCGI.
> >> Moreover, the config snippets above must be inserted in
> >> every vhost, otherwise the vhosts will share the same
> >> mono-fastcgi-server process.
> > That's not entirely true. Please read
> > 
> > http://www.fastcgi.com/mod_fastcgi/docs/mod_fastcgi.html#FastCgiWrapper
> > 
> > With the help of the above you can create a dynamic setup that suits your
> > needs.
> ... if Mono will provide its own configuration manager using a
> wrapper (which hopefully won't badly interfere with other fastcgi apps
> (e.g. php) on the same server), I'm fine with it :-)
That should be one of the options. It won't conflict with php since it may use
a different user, the path to the server is different etc. - it would have to
be investigated in depth, but at the moment I don't forsee any problems in this

> Are there any plans to make the wrapper interactive (a web
> app of its own), like a small application server?
For now we don't even have even a single line of code :) - let's wait till we
have the responder written and then we can make plans for the future. Aside
from that, I like the idea of having a fully interactive control panel for mono
asp.net hosting which would let one monitor all the running apps, manipulate
them etc. - for that we will probably need to implement the monitoring features
of System.Web, which will take a while.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ximian.com/pipermail/mono-devel-list/attachments/20070508/e09f3e73/attachment.bin 

More information about the Mono-devel-list mailing list