← Back to context Comment by assimpleaspossi 5 hours ago Exactly what I used and wonder why the OP didn't. I'll comment at the top. 1 comment assimpleaspossi Reply Levitating 4 hours ago Ease of configuration, I think? I don't remember my gripes with fcgiwrap exactly.I have used it and I've even made PR for it which led to a response from the lighttpd maintainer: https://github.com/gnosek/fcgiwrap/pull/62Essentially I wanted fgciwrap to be able to accept arbitrary response bodies without headers, so I could use it with programs that weren't actually made for cgi. Lighttpd supports this but apparently that's an happy accident.
Levitating 4 hours ago Ease of configuration, I think? I don't remember my gripes with fcgiwrap exactly.I have used it and I've even made PR for it which led to a response from the lighttpd maintainer: https://github.com/gnosek/fcgiwrap/pull/62Essentially I wanted fgciwrap to be able to accept arbitrary response bodies without headers, so I could use it with programs that weren't actually made for cgi. Lighttpd supports this but apparently that's an happy accident.
Ease of configuration, I think? I don't remember my gripes with fcgiwrap exactly.
I have used it and I've even made PR for it which led to a response from the lighttpd maintainer: https://github.com/gnosek/fcgiwrap/pull/62
Essentially I wanted fgciwrap to be able to accept arbitrary response bodies without headers, so I could use it with programs that weren't actually made for cgi. Lighttpd supports this but apparently that's an happy accident.