Comment on FastCGI: 30 years old and still the better protocol for reverse proxiesparentComments−afavour4moI 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.−assimpleaspossi4moPlease note that it's called FastCGI, not FastHTTP.−afavour4moAgain, you’re pointing out things that are obvious to those involved and I’m not sure why.−assimpleaspossi4moBecause, besides you, the rest of HN is oblivious to the obvious judging by the downvotes.
Comments
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.
Again, you’re pointing out things that are obvious to those involved and I’m not sure why.
Because, besides you, the rest of HN is oblivious to the obvious judging by the downvotes.