On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2013, at 3:37 PM, Tim Bannister <is...@jellybaby.net> wrote: > > > On 23 Aug 2013, at 15:05 (UTC-0400), Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > >> I'm scrapping some of the work I've been doing, simply because, from > what I can see, using the current method of specifying it creates problems. > >> > >> Instead, I'm looking into something like: > >> > >> http://localhost/var/run/server.sock|/foo/bar > >> > >> For ease of parsing and clearly breaking out what needs to be encoded, > etc. > > > > > > My different suggestion is unixsocket+http:/var/run/server.sock://foo/bar > > > > I've also looked at (and am hoping it works out) > > sock://var/run/server.sock|http://localhost/foo/bar > > The reason I like using '|' is it's quite Perlish :) > The other advantage is that it keep both "sides" completely > separate and self-contained. > > Your idea would still work fine if it used "fcgi" instead of "http", right? (There could be multiple protocols that use a Unix socket; something should distinguish this as FastCGI.) How would a relative socket path be represented? (assuming we want to support runtimedir) -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
