From: Kirk Haines <khaines@...>
Date: 2005-04-09T08:29:48+09:00
Subject: Re: New fcgi gem sorely needed

Tobias Luetke wrote:

> Also I think fcgi should get a version bump to 1.0 . Version numbers
> like 0.8.6 are just confusingly smelling like beta software. There are
> several companies (37signals, snowdevil...) futures being trusted to
> this code so I really think it deserves the production ready tag :)

It's not ready for a version bump to 1.0.  There were serious, blatant,
obvious memory leaks in 0.8.5.  It took me about an hour to walk through
the code, generally understand it, and find them all (I hope), and I am not
a master C programmer.  That suggests to me that there has not been a lot
of effort applied to making the C extension really robust, even though it
does now appear to work fine, even when abused pretty hard.

However, I can open up fcgi.c and find areas that could be made more robust
or more performant quite easily at this point.  Overall, the code is pretty
good, and with the patches, it IS stable, but it's stable pre 1.0 code.  It
needs some work, still, before being called 1.0.

I'm going to be using it far more extensively in the future, so I am happy,
as with the memory leak patch, to do some of this work, but I don't think
anyone should be too hasty about stamping 1.0 on it, lest we make it look
like a Microsoft versioned product (i.e. needs to get to version 3.0 before
it is any good).


Kirk Haines