From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Original-To: yahns-public@yhbt.net Received-SPF: none (godfat.org: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=dcvr.yhbt.net; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from="godfat@godfat.org"; helo=mail-lb0-f175.google.com; client-ip=209.85.217.175 Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3583020424 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 08:37:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id of3so59015463lbc.1 for ; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:37:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=godfat.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=i6GpAmMxIbvvGsJC12FKkG6gKm5ZVRGjlHl5LTxfw5g=; b=ILlBk8MDR+xRSIJxafjUfkgKecPJW87sX/hR6uoyS+pN6nUdprTlursSShTDly9Iy4 LhfpjwXQjH9qUTgRMuzYr8ZhWhSg0mxmBbdouFkNPLLFmZeWJAUE9lUhOLzow9VHOluT eodw5K9odl5esDSiWw6K0BXpQ5xU+Lrg6JwXU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=i6GpAmMxIbvvGsJC12FKkG6gKm5ZVRGjlHl5LTxfw5g=; b=R0wKow+iLUT5T8Mhrq/k34krMZtA+ZMCdBtVB6JaYDVPgc4bSxx78+x1UODu3lMQJy TrIepGs+BkebP9emzSZn6WdYFf9qSXxCVtwhGpkoHDViCDkMjQysIPmIWb/GPFWSXlEj eGV1CE/+c9gM4gHCG4QbujjXAuj6PJv2sqTXKJZwqurtqOouyTdIZUV7Nyl8krwa+ERM duhtz/mC56VXgB/MKC8QRiVcCxs4KdERXWX9HXBNYgGh4boFLgugqUe/81DIcAblue1w iiPRKDnLNOortadKohy61bo321Fgje5nQKKkXu4pUx3Gkrn+5KRVu1QSiYFZepdjQK43 h4hg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORqLhZCrH8js3ijpK3cZumJ9lPllKSjui6z8eUoER4sC+DQhbFuT36b7AdGVIYyCu1O9Dm+oFRj0oLGkA== X-Received: by 10.112.201.202 with SMTP id kc10mr7087022lbc.33.1455957453164; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:37:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.107.135 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Feb 2016 00:37:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160220081619.GA10850@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <20160220081619.GA10850@dcvr.yhbt.net> From: "Lin Jen-Shin (godfat)" Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:37:03 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] proxy_pass: document as public API To: Eric Wong Cc: yahns-public@yhbt.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-Id: On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Eric Wong wrote: > We've been using this for nearly a year to serve our own > list archives using (Apache (mpm_prefork) || Starman) and > Varnish-cache on: http://yhbt.net/yahns-public/ > --- > Any thoughts? So far I've resisted having a public API. > On the other hand, the current state of ProxyPass being a > Rack app using rack.hijack still has nasty limitations > such as incompatibility with any existing middleware. > Something simple such as access logs won't work well > (e.g. Rack::CommonLogger or Clogger) My first impression was that why not put this in a separate gem, say yahns-apps or so? I am not saying we should do this, just curious why? Easier to maintain and distribute? > On the other hand, it would be nice to have a mostly-Ruby > alternative to nginx today... [...] I am even more curious to this. Nginx is pretty accessible already, (perhaps not on Windows though?) and it would surely be more performant than Ruby. Or is it because we might want to make it not only a reverse proxy, extending it with Rack middleware? If so, then we probably don't want this directive: app(:proxy_pass) but just treat it as a Rack application? Or we might want to define another middleware, say proxy_pass's middleware, which would be slightly different than the rack ones? If so I think it makes a lot of sense to have app(:proxy_pass). Cheers,