On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:25:31 +0200, Roberto De Ioris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Il giorno 25/ago/2010, alle ore 14.02, Łukasz Wróblewski ha scritto: > >> Of course I thought about it, but I still have limit_conn and is not related >> to static files. >> So far what I've done for all the static files directory eg /static/. >> >> However, due to these files as favicon.ico, robots.txt, sitemap.xml >> configuration of Nginx to grow. >> Not only that I have to repeatedly reproduce the path to the root. >> Maybe "set" to solve this problem, but I thought that this approach of >> $request_filename is more convenient. >> >> I see not much bigger security risks ? > > > By "security risk" i mean "another thing to keep in your mind". Think about > file uploads, you have to check for their filename ecc. ecc. > >> >> Would be nice to see on the wiki complete sample configuration Nginx + uwsgi >> + static files (such as favicon.ico, robots.txt /images/) >> >> > > > I have seen the answer Maxim Dounin gives to you on the nginx mailing-list. > > I will report tit on the wiki. > > -- > Roberto De Ioris > http://unbit.it > JID: [email protected] > Exactly. You are right this is not ideal for everyone. However, I upload files in a separate place. But I think it's worth the wiki uwsgi enhanced by two examples, with "try_files" and a separate indication of static files directory. Always someone spare a few minutes. greet and wait for 0.9.6 final ;) I plan to do benchmark FAPWS vs UWSGI+Nginx, a lot of people writing in Python to sit in FAPWS. I somehow wish UWSGI + Nginx: P, but out of curiosity I would like to compare the latest versions. -- Łukasz Wróblewski DDarko.org www.hostowisko.pl - profesjonalny i tani hosting www.nri.pl - nowoczesne rozwiązania internetowe www.katalog-polskich-firm.pl - najlepszy darmowy katalog firm _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
