<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Running web.py behind SCGI</title>
	<link>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/</link>
	<description>a blog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Decorative Stone</title>
		<link>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/#comment-3931</link>
		<author>Decorative Stone</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/#comment-3931</guid>
		<description>Great tip thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great tip thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eliott</title>
		<link>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/#comment-328</link>
		<author>eliott</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/#comment-328</guid>
		<description>My understanding is that the scgi code is just much clearner than the old fcgi code (which hasn't recieved an update in quite a while).
I haven't yet tested any performance difference. I know lighttpd's fcgi implementation is pretty good.
apache fcgi is notoriously bad. fcgid is supposedly an improvement, but I haven't had much luck with it. The Apache team is working on a replacement for both of these, from what I have been told.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My understanding is that the scgi code is just much clearner than the old fcgi code (which hasn&#8217;t recieved an update in quite a while).<br />
I haven&#8217;t yet tested any performance difference. I know lighttpd&#8217;s fcgi implementation is pretty good.<br />
apache fcgi is notoriously bad. fcgid is supposedly an improvement, but I haven&#8217;t had much luck with it. The Apache team is working on a replacement for both of these, from what I have been told.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Ho</title>
		<link>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/#comment-276</link>
		<author>Andrew Ho</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:02:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://meat.net/2006/02/running-webpy-behind-scgi/#comment-276</guid>
		<description>Perhaps in a future post you can explain why SCGI is better than FastCGI? Maybe I'm dense, but from reading the intro to SCGI, it sure doesn't seem very revolutionary to me. I didn't know sending headers and content back and forth was the interesting or especially unsolved part of the webserver framework puzzle!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps in a future post you can explain why SCGI is better than FastCGI? Maybe I&#8217;m dense, but from reading the intro to SCGI, it sure doesn&#8217;t seem very revolutionary to me. I didn&#8217;t know sending headers and content back and forth was the interesting or especially unsolved part of the webserver framework puzzle!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
