161–170 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can also just serve HTTP.
That has nothing to do with my question. Of course you "serve HTTP". I want to know how one interfaces with a server without CGI or fastCGI.
Both Apache and Nginx can proxy HTTP, out of the box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, lemme spell it out: bundling the app and the server together; that’s what’s implied.
Which comes back to my question. Can one do that with apache and nginx? I'm pretty sure I've seen methods for this in Apache but only the paid version of nginx. Am I wrong?
Looks like one can also write nginx modules, but I’m not familiar with nginx licensing to know if a purchase is required to use that in a commercial deployment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with my question. Of course you "serve HTTP". I want to know how one interfaces with a server without CGI or fastCGI.
You serve HTTP to the server. To the front-end server or the load balancer, aka ‘reverse proxy’. That's how. Both Apache and Nginx can proxy HTTP, out of the box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You serve HTTP to the server. To the front-end server or the load balancer, aka ‘reverse proxy’. That's how. Both Apache and Nginx can proxy HTTP, out of the box.
IOW, opening a socket from the routing HTTP server to an application HTTP server. That’s pretty much how FCGI works.
(Only, CGI managed to get headers sorta right by embedding them in protocol vars and not the other way around.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, lemme spell it out: bundling the app and the server together; that’s what’s implied.
Which comes back to my question. Can one do that with apache and nginx? I'm pretty sure I've seen methods for this in Apache but only the paid version of nginx. Am I wrong?
But Nginx does have a Lua module, and, I think, Perl. Afaik both are in the free version. Mostly used to augment configuration, or for lightweight interfacing directly with databases (ahem Redis and Memcached cough).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which comes back to my question. Can one do that with apache and nginx? I'm pretty sure I've seen methods for this in Apache but only the paid version of nginx. Am I wrong?
I mentioned Apache modules in my comment. Write a module, add it to Apache’s config, your code loads with the web server. Looks like one can also write nginx modules, but I’m not familiar with nginx licensing to know if a purchase is required to use that in a commercial deployment.
I see you and 10,900 other "software developers" get the point of WebSocket. It's especially "impressive" when you written the whole thing in Go and could have used goroutines and channels, which could easily handle hundreds of thousand of connections (maybe millions). Terrible design!
For a long time I thought every software developer must be smart, but a lot of them don't see the big picture very often.
Why this bothers me so much? You created something that a lot of developers think is good enough, so less innovation will happen and more and more slow websites will appear because of tech like this...
This is the second or third "it's CGI again" thing I've seen in the past year. While these things are cool and definitely have their place, it's still worth noting that process per connection scales fairly poorly, simply because processes and forking are relatively expensive, and therefore it's probably unwise to deploy something like this in production anymore. It is what it is, I suppose.
This is something that confuses me. Servers offer CGI and fastCGI and if you aren't using those to interface with your own code, how do you do so otherwise? Do some languages have their own deep connections into the server flow that makes them faster? I just don't understand this.
Unpopular opinion: AWS lambda is basically equivalent to CGI. The web has come full circle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The myth that fork is expensive is pervasive, and speaking to the ways that it is true†, well: performance is relative. fork() only takes around 8ms on my Linux machine and I can get 100,000 posix_spawn() per second there with 100MB RSS. That's "fast enough" for a large number of applications. †: fork() is a lot slower (over 20x) on Windows
8ms per fork means you can only accept 125 connections per second. (per core) That means it's only viable for connections where the connection is very long lived and messages are very sparse (because context switches).