I agree with the article, FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things.
Though I'd like to make another protocol known: Web Application Socket (WAS). I designed it 16 years ago at my dayjob because I thought FastCGI still wasn't good enough.
Instead of packing bulk data inside frames on the main socket, WAS has a control socket plus two pipes (raw request+response body). Both the WAS application and the web server can use splice() to operate on a pipe, for example. No framing needed. Also, requests are cancellable and the three file descriptors can always be recovered.
Over the years, we used WAS for many of our internal applications, and for our web hosting environment, I even wrote a PHP SAPI for WAS. Quite a large number of web sites operate with WAS internally.
It's all open source:
- library: https://github.com/CM4all/libwas - documentation: https://libwas.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ - non-blocking library: https://github.com/CM4all/libcommon/tree/master/src/was/asyn... - our web server: https://github.com/CM4all/beng-proxy - WebDAV: https://github.com/CM4all/davos - PHP fork with WAS SAPI: https://github.com/CM4all/php-src
>>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.
fwiw, I used fcgi for a decade for all our web customers.
>> 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.
I didn't quote anything from the article. I was responding to the comment, not the article.
The 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.
> 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.
Not entirely correct. A reverse proxy can either speak HTTP, or a different protocol such as FastCGI with the application server. The article is talking about that communication.
They are not interchangeable for the browser-to-server communication, but they are for the server-to-application piece.
Your last sentence is exactly what I said.
You didn't though. You may have intended to?
The article points out that HTTP and FastCGI are both options for reverse proxies to communicate to the downstream server. I didn't find a reference to them being interchangeable outside of that context. If there is or was one please quote it.
I was responding to the comment, not the article.
The article is really exclusively about the reverse proxy server to server use case, not client to server. The title even says it.
I responded to the comment, not the article.
> imply that HTTP and FastCGI are interchangeable and they are not.
But they are interchangeable!
FastCGI and HTTP/1.1 are indeed on the same level. Both are transport protocols for HTTP requests.
It would be technically possible to implement FastCGI as alternate transport protocols in browsers and web servers, just like HTTP/2 (SPDY) and HTTP/3 (QUIC) are alternate transport protocols for HTTP requests.
(This is not what the article and my comment are about, as others already pointed out.)
I feel like the author of an alternative protocol probably knows these things.
I think the author mentions HTTP because many people use it where they could be using FastCGI and just don’t.
Please note that it's called FastCGI, not FastHTTP.
And yet I’ve seen in production the (ab)use of HTTP where fcgi would’ve been a much better fit.