Ah I forgot
you can compare camping running on thin here
http://run.camping.io:3301/
vs passenger at http://run.camping.io
apparently db has some problems with fusion passenger (see
http://run.camping.io create HTML page and test HTML page. The same code on
thin works just fine... umhh oh no
Okay :D after many many hours of testing I am settled for nginx and
passenger.
live at http://run.camping.io/
I did try every apache combination (with passenger, with cgi, etc. etc.) as
is simply not really working fine.
I tried some other obscure web servers too but apparently this seems to
work
Wonder if Google might help getting camping to run on app engine?
On 1 April 2012 10:03, david costa gurugeek...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah I forgot
you can compare camping running on thin here
http://run.camping.io:3301/
vs passenger at http://run.camping.io
apparently db has some problems with
Umh I doubt it was already here
http://camping.io/Book/-Publishing-an-App#Using-Google-App-Engine
but is far from an automated, one line /one upload system
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Peter Retief peterret...@gmail.com wrote:
Wonder if Google might help getting camping to run on app
Hm. I know the main guy responsible for App Engine, and, well, I certainly
wouldn't build a platform atop it - even aside from the huge glaring issue that
to have an app which can store data persistently, you need to use google's
proprietary database software.
Heroku doesn't screen against
Remember that we should pretty much make a Gemfile mandatory if the user makes
use of gems other than Camping. For example, rack_csrf. And we should make sure
that dependencies get installed. :)
--
Skickat från min Android-telefon med K-9 E-post. Ursäkta min fåordighet.
Jenna Fox
I don't think we need to go as far as automatically installing gems - securing
ruby is a pretty big challenge, but securing gcc? no way.
—
Jenna
On Sunday, 1 April 2012 at 8:25 PM, Isak Andersson wrote:
Remember that we should pretty much make a Gemfile mandatory if the user
makes use of
Well. Isn't it kind of possible to just hack the gem installation in using the
ruby quotes that execute code on the system. I can't type them on the phone but
I think you know what I mean. Kind of a security issue isn't it?
Anyways. Perhaps we could offer some Gems to pick from that we think
@Isak Anything run with the `backticks operator` runs with the same privileges
as the process which launched them, if using system level sandboxing, or if
using some crazy sandbox built in to ruby (which probably wouldn't be very
good, but maybe good enough) it'd probably just disable backticks
Okay then. But then we'd make sure that the applications don't have privilege
to install gems then.
--
Skickat från min Android-telefon med K-9 E-post. Ursäkta min fåordighet.
Jenna Fox a...@creativepony.com skrev:
@Isak Anything run with the `backticks operator` runs with the same privileges
A bit late in the day, but (quick and probably uninformed thought,
given the volume of messages I just skimmed) might rvm help manage
Ruby installs/updates/gems safely? - DaveE
Hello again ! :)
well in theory we can chrot jail users but the best way is to
install the gems that people need
Oh gods not RVM. This setup does not need another layer of complexity.
On my own server, I use five thins, which run all the time, on a set of five
ports which nginx proxy to. To run hundreds of camping apps, this sort of
persistent setup isn't viable. CGI would work, but could be a little
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Jenna Fox a...@creativepony.com wrote:
Oh gods not RVM. This setup does not need another layer of complexity.
On my own server, I use five thins, which run all the time, on a set of
five ports which nginx proxy to. To run hundreds of camping apps, this sort
13 matches
Mail list logo
