World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9763x3] | and also should be able to clear them regularly |
i always had to put the developers into the adm group so they can access the /var/log/apache2/ directory | |
where they saw a lot more than their interest | |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9766] | Agreed, but you could create per-user sub-folders there? |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9767x4] | running their own app server (mongrel/thin/unicorn) helped a littlebit, but they couldn't easily test what was returned just by the webserver from cache / static files |
the main problem with my setup was always the autonomity of the users | |
i had to edit config files when a new user joined the company | |
and i had to be aware where are they checking out the source of the projects they were working on and i also had to assign port numbers to them, so i could configure the reverse proxy in apache/nginx to connect to their app servers | |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9771x2] | Your need is pretty clear. |
You could do the same (reverse proxy/nginx) with Cheyenne instances. | |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9773] | security in such a case is not a big concern (unless the machine get rooted :) |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9774] | Cheyenne just needs to be able to pick the config file from a remote folder instead of just current one. |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9775] | sure, but i would love to get rid of any external component, since cheyenne seems to be pretty close being able to cater for such a setup |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9776] | Where would Cheyenne binary be in your scenario? |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9777x2] | /usr/local/bin/ |
or sbin | |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9779x3] | then how could Cheyenne know where to look for config file ? |
the only way I see is passing the config file path as command-line argument, something like: cheyenne -p 8001 -conf /home/devel1/app/current/ | |
Would such feature cover your needs for user autonomy? | |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9782x5] | if it still looks in the current directory for a httpd.cfg by default, then it's not even necessary |
cd approot; cheyenne | |
cheyenne --conf approot | |
not a big difference | |
doesnt worth the trouble, i guess | |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9787] | is approot linux specific? |
Maxim 17-Apr-2011 [9788] | why not a mod_log ;-) |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9789] | might still be needed for MacOS X servers? |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9790] | by app-root i mean that directory level which cheyenne will never try to reach above |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9791] | ok |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9792] | any relative path in a config file is normally calculated from there |
Maxim 17-Apr-2011 [9793] | again, why not allow these configs in the httpd.cfg file? |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9794] | because, the httpd.cfg place is unknown to Cheyenne in this case ;) |
Maxim 17-Apr-2011 [9795x2] | ah so you're talking about the embeded mode? |
or then... what is "this case" I'm obviously missing something here :-) | |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9797x2] | nope, see the piratepad link from onetom, we were talking about relocating the whole Cheyenne working folder. |
Dinner time here... | |
Maxim 17-Apr-2011 [9799] | ahh. k. |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9800x5] | were we talking about such things? really? :D |
this mod-userdir name is a bit misleading, i think. i was expecting some handler for the /~user/ pathes and the ability to automatically fire up workers with the right ownership based on the owner of the directory it's serving from | |
however, since the source version runs again with /core, i can hack whatever i want now | |
i just need the logs go out of the way in a binary version | |
in the binary versions | |
Maxim 17-Apr-2011 [9805x2] | Doc, is it safe to do this: req/in: make req/in [ data: value ] within any/all of the module phases? |
safe in the sense that some code in uniserve/cheyenne might have an absolute reference to the req/in... and this could break the chain of command.. | |
Dockimbel 17-Apr-2011 [9807] | I think that it is safe, but you should test if Cheyenne still works correctly after such change anyway (too bad we don't have unit tests for checking in such case...;-)). |
onetom 17-Apr-2011 [9808x5] | hm... i miss the "restful" routing layer :) |
i would like to have rebol files with an object in them -- like asd.r qwe.r -- returned as json via the path /asd and /qwe | |
i was thinking making a webapp which returns on-page-end the to-json context load rejoin [%. request/parsed/file %.r] | |
but i get a 404 in an earlier step, i guess | |
i have a couple of ideas how to hack this, but what would be the "correct" way? | |
older newer | first last |