> But you can use the FFI to produce Ur values of [blob] type in any way you > like, and then you can use [returnBlob] to serve them -- there's no need to > intercept sockets.
In my previous letter I tried to explain why I don't like Apache as a wrapper for the Ur/Web application. Whenever I need to send files, I do use [returnBlob] most of the time. > Did you just ask the socket detaching as an optimization? Did it make an > important performance difference in practice? I see socket detachment as one possible implementation of file serving machine. I didn't measure its performance, I think it has some advantages in the field of usability. It allows the programmer 1) to access Unix socket for obtaining the system-specific information via FFI. I use it to determine client's IP address. AFAIK, we can't obtain this information in the vanilla Ur/Web at the moment. 2) consequently, to pass the socket to child processes. File server machine is one possible application for that. This way, application developer may encode the choice of file server into their application (one of my goals - to make installation manual shorter). In the urweb-detach demo, I launch bash script to serve the file. Apache may be used in place of it. Actually, I'm not asking you to include socket detachment, at least in its current form. I use it in one project only and I feel I need more time to adjust the design. Just wanted to share the idea. Regards, Sergey > _______________________________________________ > Ur mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur _______________________________________________ Ur mailing list [email protected] http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
