#20766 closed Cleanup/optimization (fixed)
Deprecate fastcgi support
| Reported by: | Tim Graham | Owned by: | Tim Graham |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component: | Core (Other) | Version: | dev |
| Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | fastcgi |
| Cc: | timograham@… | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
| Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
| Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
| Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
from Jacob in django-developers:
This, for me, is the key: anything that's not a WSGI container is basically the wrong way to serve Django. Full stop. By continuing to include these other weird protocols we're implying that they're fully supported when they're actually totally not. Back in the day, we needed FCGI support because the options for hosting Python stuff was super limited. Today, there are a ton of options, even in the ultra-low-cost category.
Let's start FCGI (and the others) down the path to deprecation. If there's truly a community that finds value in these things -- and frankly I think that once they try modern options they'll quickly switch and never look back -- then let them maintain the code.
Change History (8)
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|---|
| Has patch: | set |
| Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
comment:2 by , 11 years ago
Even if we drop FCGI support in Django, the docs should make clear that you can still use it…; eg have a small page describing it like this: http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Options.html#fastcgi-socket and offer http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Options.html#fastcgi-socket as a runfcgi replacement.
comment:3 by , 11 years ago
I don't know enough about using FastCGI via uWSGI to write a how-to. If someone else is interested in writing something, I'm happy to review it.
comment:4 by , 11 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
https://github.com/django/django/pull/1371