Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 13:57:00 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Supporting git access via smart HTTPS protocol for musl-libc On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 11:57:43AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote: > On 2019-03-26 11:47 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > > I don't see why thttpd is making it difficult. It makes routing with > > haproxy difficult only because haproxy is more pedantic than any web > > browser is about headers, but I don't want to use haproxy routing > > anyway. > > Does thttpd even have routing at all? As far as I can tell it is not > capable of sourcing routes from anywhere other than the filesystem. This > makes conditionally dispatching requests to git difficult. Perhaps I > misunderstand how this kind of thing could be configured with thttpd? If configured to do so, when foo/bar does not exist but foo/ does, it will exec foo/index.cgi with access to the full path requested. This suffices for cgit paths so it should suffice for git http protocol too. > > I'd love to have a modern one with the same type of design. > > Unfortunately all the modern ones are hideous. > > The design is what's antiquted. Well we disagree on this. I consider handling of all requests via the filesystem, using a single-task poll() loop, and exec'ing a cgi child process per dynamic request, to be the reasonable design from a standpoint of both proper isolation and decent efficiency. The whole "persistent task to handle dynamic content" thing was a mistake and is a lot more error-prone *and* resource-costly unless you're using awful language runtimes that are slow to startup. > > > I'd vote in favor of switching to nginx, in the > > > > nginx doesn't even support cgi. It just forwards to another server for > > cgi. It's also horribly bloated and enterprise-ey. In 5-10 years it > > will go exactly the same way Apache did. Watch for them to have their > > own Tomcat but for whatever language displaces Java... > > I agree on all of these points, but I'd like to draw attention to the > fact that 5-10 years from now is 5-10 years from now. That's plenty of > time to come up with a better httpd, and in the meanwhile nginx has yet > to go the Apache way. It's already bad, just not *as bad*. And it's much worse than what we have now, so there's no reason to switch to it. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.