Re: critique of vibe.d

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 10:24:23 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 21:07:26 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:28:42 +0000
schrieb "Dicebot" <pub...@dicebot.lv>:
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 17:05:21 UTC, Johannes Pfau 
wrote:
> Completely off-topic, but:
>
> Have you considered making vibe http-backend independent?
> So that it could provide a fcgi interface or be included in 
> an nginx
> plugin?

What is the benefit as opposed to using proxy_pass at nginx? 
fcgi will be slower than built-in vibe.d HTTP server.

FCGI was only an example. I guess the only benefit is that the 
webserver
can spawn fcgi backends when it starts and files with certain
extensions can be handled with these backends.

But that's of course only useful with shared libraries / pages.

vibe.d can do it internally by having different routes for 
different file types and doing dynamic load if desired. Being 
100% independent of HTTP server frontend is a big feature in my 
opinion.

Yes, that's what I use. I have this in my vibe.d code (to solve 
the problem that Chrome/Chromium play sound files only once):

router.get("*.wav", &handleAudioRequest);

private void handleAudioRequest(HTTPServerRequest req, 
HTTPServerResponse res) {
  res.headers.addField("Accept-Ranges", "bytes");
}