←back to thread

Remember FastCGI? (2021)

(brokenco.de)
53 points heavensteeth | 1 comments | 08 Apr 25 12:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
somat ◴[11 Apr 25 15:35 UTC] No.43655047[source]▶
I never really understood the rational for using fastcgi. For everything I wanted to do it always made more sense to just use custom http servers and proxys.

CGI makes sense, it fills a specific environment, one request, one process, but fastCGI? why? its a server with a different incompatible HTTP. did everyone jump on it just because it had CGI in the name and the associativity CGI == web process was too firmly entrenched in peoples minds.

But I am not really in a web ops role, so who knows, perhaps fastcgi does have some sort of advantage when run at scale.

replies(2): >>43659523 #>>43671651 #
1. myaccountonhn ◴[13 Apr 25 10:12 UTC] No.43671651[source]▶
It's very easy to implement. So if you're using some niche language and want to get a web server up and running, then you can implement an SCGI (or fastcgi) parser in like 20 lines of code. Its much harder to implement the full HTTP spec.