[web-devel] questions about ResponseEnumerator
michael at snoyman.com
Thu Oct 6 09:16:29 CEST 2011
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu at iij.ad.jp> wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>>>> I think we could make that functionality optional, based on an extra
>>>> setting parameter. Would this just be boolean, or is more
>>>> sophisticated control required?
>>> What I want to do is to prevent a bad guy abusing CGI. So, I guess
>>> that boolean is enough.
>> Alright, here's a first stab. What do you think?
>>  https://github.com/yesodweb/wai/commit/d2b6c66abef939bb1396d576e7541b711a6db67b
> Mighttpd executes a sub process and creates a pair of pipes for
> CGI. If timeout happens, it seems to me that there is no way to kill
> the sub process and close the pipes with this scheme.
> I would like to register a house-keeping action to Wrap's timer.
So it sounds like instead of the solution we just put in, we should
just expose the ability to use Warp's timeout code directly. This
shouldn't be a problem:
* Expose the Timeout module (maybe in its own package, could be useful
* Add an extra settingsTimeoutManager :: IO Manager. That way you can
create the manager in Mighttpd and then reuse it in Warp.
Would this address the issue?
More information about the web-devel