Re: Why FastCGI?
[email protected] (Andrey Repin)
| Newsgroups | php.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Greetings, Sam Hobbs. In reply to Your message dated Sunday, March 21, 2021, 17:38:52, > Gunter Grodotzki wrote on 3/21/2021 4:53 AM: >> Hi all, >> >> Why does fpm still use fcgi instead of http? What are the advantages (in modern days)? >> >> If it were to speak http, we could most probably avoid the requirement of nginx or similar as middlewoman, which makes cloud setups (docker, aws-alb, ...) a bit easier and more straight forward. >> >> What are the thoughts on this? Alternatively the built-in server but with forking capabilities (similar to fpm) :) > HTML and FastCGI both require HTTP for the server and client to > communicate. Server-side programming such as PHP require something like > CGI, FastCGI or FPM to execute. CGI is the original technology, created > for HTML to process forms. FastCGI is more efficient. I am not familiar > with FPM but apparently it has improvements to FastCGI unique to PHP. You did not understand the question and basically confusing the terminology. CGI is a protocol of exchanging information between client and server. So is HTTP. FastCGI is a way to organize CGI server (and a small deviation from CGI protocol, too). FPM is a name for PHP's server manager. HTML is a markup language, dammit. It does not exist on protocol level and is not relevant to the question in the slightest. The question is why do we need this HTTP -> CGI conversion step at all to begin with. The answer is that CGI protocol is simpler to implement. And generally speaking, the first step is not necessarily HTTP. -- Sincerely Yours, Andrey Repin <[email protected]>