[assimpleaspossi]

>>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.

[scottlamb]

>> 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]

I didn't quote anything from the article. I was responding to the comment, not the article.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

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.

[assimpleaspossi]

And I was saying his comment is wrong. Sometimes HN can be just so reddit-like.

[justusthane]

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.

[max_k]

Thanks, but I feel we're all just feeding this one troll. Don't bother replying anymore, it's pointless.

[scottlamb]

> 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.

[selcuka]

> 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.

[assimpleaspossi]

Your last sentence is exactly what I said.

[opello]

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.

[assimpleaspossi]

I was responding to the comment, not the article.

[opello]

> I agree with the article, FastCGI is better than HTTP for these things.

If this is what you mean to identify as claiming FastCGI and HTTP are generally interchangeable, and are rising to correct, I'll also offer that "agree with the article" and "these things" narrow the context to "for reverse proxy communication" and do not suggest the broader meaning you've interpreted.

[anon7000]

The article is really exclusively about the reverse proxy server to server use case, not client to server. The title even says it.

[assimpleaspossi]

I responded to the comment, not the article.

[max_k]

> 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.)

[afavour]

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.

[assimpleaspossi]

Please note that it's called FastCGI, not FastHTTP.

[afavour]

Again, you’re pointing out things that are obvious to those involved and I’m not sure why.

[assimpleaspossi]

Because, besides you, the rest of HN is oblivious to the obvious judging by the downvotes.

[girvo]

And yet I’ve seen in production the (ab)use of HTTP where fcgi would’ve been a much better fit.