3 ms·
>> FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things. > FastCGI and HTTP are at two different levels. HTTP is for data transfer from, say, a browser and a server. F
by scottlamb 5mo ago
>> FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things.
> FastCGI and HTTP are at two different levels. HTTP is for data transfer from, say, a browser and a server. FastCGI is for handling that data between the server and an application. Just now I glanced at the article and it seems the author writes in a confusing way to imply that HTTP and FastCGI are interchangeable and they are not.
That might be just you. The article is littered with the qualifier "for reverse proxies", including in the title and two section headers, and "as the protocol between reverse proxies and backends" in the second paragraph. I don't know how it could be any more clear on this point.
The max_k comment you've quoted includes "for these things"; context clues suggest by "these things" he also means to limit his comment to the reverse proxy <-> backend leg.
- assimpleaspossi 5mo agoI didn't quote anything from the article. I was responding to the comment, not the article.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 5mo agoThe comment was made in response to the article. This whole discussion is in the context of the article. You choosing to ignore that doesn't mean everyone else has to let you.
- assimpleaspossi 5mo agoAnd I was saying his comment is wrong. Sometimes HN can be just so reddit-like.
- justusthane 5mo agoHis comment is _not_ wrong. He says "I agree with the article, FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things." "These things" being the communication between a proxy and the backend.
- max_k 5mo agoThanks, but I feel we're all just feeding this one troll. Don't bother replying anymore, it's pointless.
- scottlamb 5mo ago> I didn't quote anything from the article. You referred to it: "just now I glanced at the article and it seems the author writes in a confusing way..." > I was responding to the comment, not the article. It sure looks like you were responding to both, and I addressed both. Also, you're going to have a hard time understanding HN comments if you don't read top-level comments as responses to the article, even if they don't start with "I agree with the article" as max_k's comment did.