Albert Y. C. Lai
trebla at vex.net
Mon Feb 12 17:27:29 EST 2007
Bjorn Bringert wrote:
> pwrapper is not an HTTP server, though the Haddock comment can make you
> think so. pwrapper allows you to talk *CGI* over a TCP port, but I have
> no idea why anyone would like to do that.
Here is a scenerio. I want a basic web application: someone makes a
request, and my program computes a response.
* For one reason or another, I settle with CGI.
* The program is huge and slow to load. (Let's say it statically links
in the whole GHC API and therefore is basically GHC itself. :) ) It
would suck to re-load this program at every request.
* Or, the program performs work that requires more file-system privilege
than the admin of the web server grants. You know, a good admin sets up
a web server and all CGI scripts to run with nobody's privilege.
* Or, nevermind performance or privilege. I am a cheapo, and I use a
cheapo hosting provider, which only provides me with 3MB of storage. My
program weighs 17MB (recall that it links in the whole GHC :) ).
Here is a solution. The program runs as a daemon and never quits; it can
run somewhere with sufficient privilege and storage. It talks CGI over
TCP. At the web server, which is super-slow, super-paranoid, and
super-cheapo, the CGI script is a lightweight C program that redirects
everything over TCP to my daemon.
(Here is a counter-solution. The program still runs as a daemon
somewhere, but it talks my own protocol over TCP. The CGI script is a
lightweight C program that parses CGI into my own protocol. Besides
having to design my own protocol carefully, here is a problem: C is a
great language for writing parsers that are incomplete, inconsistent,
and insecure. :) )
More information about the Haskell-Cafe