Comment on FastCGI: 30 years old and still the better protocol for reverse proxiesparentComments−sjsdaiuasgdia4moThe 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.−assimpleaspossi4moAnd I was saying his comment is wrong. Sometimes HN can be just so reddit-like.−justusthane4moHis 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_k4moThanks, but I feel we're all just feeding this one troll. Don't bother replying anymore, it's pointless.
Comments
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.
And I was saying his comment is wrong. Sometimes HN can be just so reddit-like.
His 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.
Thanks, but I feel we're all just feeding this one troll. Don't bother replying anymore, it's pointless.