Jamie Heilman wrote:
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://127.0.0.1:8080/VirtualHostBase/http/%{HTTP_HOST}:%{SERVER_PORT}/some/folder/VirtualHostRoot$1 [P,L]
This way you don't have to worry about what hostname the user uses to
access their site.
[security considerations
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
> RewriteRule ^(.*)$
>http://127.0.0.1:8080/VirtualHostBase/http/%{HTTP_HOST}:%{SERVER_PORT}/some/folder/VirtualHostRoot$1
> [P,L]
>
> This way you don't have to worry about what hostname the user uses to
> access their site.
Ugh. The host header should be consid
Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote:
I believe we should have a proper persitent protocol, either PGCI or
FastCGI (but probably not both, to avoid confusion), to connect Zope and
front-end webservers and we should also make an effort to keep the
connectors from major HTTP servers to those protocols in
Beware, random notes below
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 11:24, Romain Slootmaekers wrote:
>
> here's an edited repost from an answer I got from this mailing list.
> it has helped me with zope+apache (+ ssl) and is a good start for the
> documentation upgrade, (although I personally use the apache proxyp
RewriteRules, and to a lesser extent, ProxyPass, has almost completely
replaced any CGI method with Apache. However, I don't know the status
with other servers, primarily IIS, so I think it shouldn't be dropped
completely.
Good point regarding IIS. I think its possible to make the ASP 404
scri
here's an edited repost from an answer I got from this mailing list.
it has helped me with zope+apache (+ ssl) and is a good start for the
documentation upgrade, (although I personally use the apache proxypass
directives)
-- original help from Leonardo Rochael Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
He
Jeff Rush wrote:
I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that mod_proxy was hard to
configure correctly to pass all headers, particularly in complex virtual
hosting scenarios.
No, that's when it's easy. :)
The onlyhard part is getting the original IP adress into the logs, and
most people simply
Jeff Rush wrote:
Having only ever used Zope-behind-PCGI myself, if we drop it, what would
be the prevailing approach for running Zope behind Apache?
RewriteRules, and to a lesser extent, ProxyPass, has almost completely
replaced any CGI method with Apache. However, I don't know the status
wit
> of course, you should also close port 8080 (or whatever your zope server
> runs on) from any access from hosts other than 127.0.0.1
Actually, I think you can do this already by *binding* that port only
on 127.0.0.1. I believe there's a "host" parameter that lets you
specify the host to bind to
Romain Slootmaekers wrote:
> it's only 5 lines in your virtual host configuration.
Did you remember to block VirtualHost{Base,Host} and _vh_* ?
Actually there's a solid argument to be made for blocking any request
with "/_" in the path_info.
--
Jamie Heilman http://audible.tran
Andy McKay wrote:
Unfortunately thats more a matter of documentation inertia more than
anything. There are more articles on Zope.org about PCGI as well simply
because it has been around the longest, although almost everyone I know
runs through mod_proxy nowadays.
I'd actually say it's because
Jeff Rush wrote:
I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that mod_proxy was hard to
configure correctly to pass all headers, particularly in complex virtual
hosting scenarios. But I'm no Apache expert.
funny,
because that was the exactly the reason we chose mod_proxy over PCGI:
the easy of con
But mostly I thought PCGI (and FastCGI) was the preferred way, since it
is covered in detail in Zope's doc/WEBSERVER.TXT and neither mod_proxy
nor mod_redirect are mentioned in there. ;-)
Unfortunately thats more a matter of documentation inertia more than
anything. There are more articles on Z
I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that mod_proxy was hard to
configure correctly to pass all headers, particularly in complex virtual
hosting scenarios. But I'm no Apache expert.
And I thought that mod_redirect added overhead to every request, doing
the redirect cycle via the browser. It
> Having only ever used Zope-behind-PCGI myself, if we drop it, what would
> be the prevailing approach for running Zope behind Apache? Has everyone
> switched to FastCGI (or Quixote's SCGI) but me?
AFAIK most people use Apache's mod_redirect to a Zope HTTP server
running at (e.g.) port 8000.
[me]
> AFAIK most people use Apache's mod_redirect to a Zope HTTP server
> running at (e.g.) port 8000. No additional software needed.
I meant mod_proxy of course.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Zope-Dev maillist -
Hi
I have always run Zope behind Apache utilising mod_proxy.
I have to admit I never tried or really even evaluated pcgi, and don't
build it when I install Zope.
Is there a benefit of pcgi over using mod_proxy ?
Rgds
Tim Hoffman
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 09:16, Jeff Rush wrote:
> Having only ev
Having only ever used Zope-behind-PCGI myself, if we drop it, what would
be the prevailing approach for running Zope behind Apache? Has everyone
switched to FastCGI (or Quixote's SCGI) but me?
Be aware that there are Zope-specific patches (some of which I provided)
in the version of PCGI that
How about making it a separately downloadable
add-on like LocalFS, Squishdot, etc. etc.
--Craeg
> Jim Fulton wrote at 2003-2-13 11:30 -0500:
> > I'm wondering how PCGI should be supported in Zope moving forward.
> Do we still need it?
>
> I would prefer to drop it (to reduce complexity).
>
>
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
