[collectd] collection4 FastCGI vs. HTTP [was: collection4 nitpicking]

[Trent W. Buck]

Sebastian Harl wrote:
>> Secondly, why is FastCGI being used?  My life would be easier if
>> collection4 was an "app server", i.e. it was a permanently-running
>> daemon that spoke HTTP to the "real" web server, being a reverse
>> proxy like varnish, nginx or apache mod_proxy.
>
> I suppose, FastCGI has been used as that was (or seemed to be ;-))
> easier than implementing a stand-alone "app server" talking HTTP.

A slight acquaintance suggested this can be achieved with libevent:

17:05 <SpamapS> twb: In that case, libevent FTW
17:06 <SpamapS> full http server code built in.. :)
17:06 <twb> I've only ever seen libevent used in rxvt
17:07 <SpamapS> twb: recent versions of libevent have evhttp.h ...
17:07 <SpamapS> http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/doxygen-1.4.3/
17:07 <SpamapS> twb: you just register a callback per URI, and a default callback for dynamic URI's
17:09 <SpamapS> I played around with it a few months ago.. VERY easy to write an HTTP server

My C-fu is pretty darn weak, so if someone else wants to take point on
this, they're more than welcome.  Otherwise I'll try to look into it
this week, but most likely I will completely forget about it.