On 31 May 2010 07:49, Paul Ruizendaal <p...@planet.nl> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Two remarks: > > 1. I'm happy that more and more people are contributing to Fossil, but I'm > also a bit concerned about the increasing Posix dependence. The https code > builds in a dependence on libssl, and now the below patch is Posix only. > The cross-platform nature of Fossil is important to me, as is the small > binary (i.e. no dependence on cygwin, wine, jre, ...) >
The primary reason this patch is POSIX only is that I don't have access to a Windows box to test on - nor do I have any winsock experience. > 2. What is the added value of scgi? What can scgi do that http can't? What > I mean is, running Fossil as http server and configuring the front server > (ngix in the original post) as a reverse proxy solves the exact same > problem without any need for additional code. Perhaps I'm missing the > point, but to me adding scgi is bloat. > > Paul > > SCGI is designed as a web server to application protocol. It allows the server to pass state to Fossil that it would be otherwise unable to do - for example, when using a HTTP reverse proxy, the client IP either gets lost or moved into the X-HTTP-Forwarded-For header. SCGI and FastCGI also play better with HTTP keep alive and similar features, as the web server is in a better position from the point of view of managing the connections.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
