Re: I'm starting using chicken4 (Re: [Chicken-users] 4.6.1 performance boost

[Daishi Kato]

At Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:24:10 +0200,
Peter Bex wrote:
> > ;;;; raw-handler.scm
> > ; handler to emulate chicken3-style request-handler
> 
> [..code snipped..]
> 
> I don't know, but that doesn't look complete.

> Yeah, that'd just be a simple wrapper layer around it.

It's incomplete. I just wanted to ask you if it's
something valuable to others.

> > I'm creating 302 response without specifying the host.
> 
> Sorry, that's not allowed (see RFC2616, 14.30).  I know, "everyone
> does it", but it's actually invalid.

Yeah, I think I've read that some time back.

> Anyway, why would you want to do that at all?  The current request URI
> is already absolute by default, and having the host in there doesn't
> hurt, does it?

I tell you why, and maybe you have an idea for workaround.
I've started my project with http-server (or spiffy) as a standalone
http server, however I now have to run on a server that runs Apache
and only port 80 is available. Hence, I let Apache forward http requests
to my standalone server (Reverse Proxy).
If I use the absolute path, it becomes something like
http://127.0.0.1:8888/.....
which doesn't make sense.
One restriction is that I don't want to include the server hostname in scm.

One solution would be to use SGI, which is not ready in chicken4.

> I went through quite some trouble to get it working this way precisely
> because of the requirement in the RFC that the location should be
> absolute!  And now you're going through a lot of trouble to strip off
> that stuff, undoing my work.  I find that rather ironic :)

Because the rest of my code is old :)

> > wow. I wish you include those examples in the doc.
> 
> It's a wiki, you know :) But I've added it for you.

Ture. I'm not confident to give them nicely.

Best,
Daishi