> * Roberto De Ioris <[email protected]> [2013-04-03
> 11:12]:
>>> Yes, that seems to be logical behavior.
>>> There's one additional, related issue, I would like to make these
>>> mountpoints conditional on a virtualhost/docroot, i.e. I have one
>>> uwsgi vassal per user which serves multiple sites but the
>>> mountpoint should only be valid for one of the virtual hosts.
>>> With some limitations I can already achieve that for WSGI through
>>> the new routing system but apparently not for CGI scripts, any
>>> ideas how that could be solved? Should I open an RFE on the
>>> bugtracker to discuss this?
>>> --
>>> Guido Berhoerster
>>
>>
>> The current "approach" (instead of implementing virtualhosting in each
>> plugin) is exposing (where possibile) request plugins even to the
>> routing
>> api.
>>
>> We already have static:, xslt:, gridfs:, ssi:...
>>
>> I think cgi: could be a great addition to versatility:
>>
>> route-if = equal:${HTTP_HOST};uwsgi.it goto:uwsgi.it
>> route-run = break:
>>
>> route-label = uwsgi.it
>> route-if = endswith:${PATH_INFO};.cgi cgi:/usr/lib/cgi-bin/${PATH_INFO}
>>
>> and so on
>
> For WSGI apps I'm already (ab)using the new routing system
> for serving apps only for a certain virtualhost with a similar
> construction:
>
> plugins = 0:notfound,router_uwsgi,cgi,php,16:python
>
> [...]
>
> manage-script-name = true
> no-default-app = true
> mount = /some-app=/usr/share/some-app/some-app-wrapper.py
>
> route-host = ^(.+)$ goto:$1
>
> route-label = foo.example.com
> route = .* goto:common-routing
>
> route-label = bar.example.com
> route-uri = ^/some-app/ uwsgi:,16,0
> route = .* goto:common-routing
>
> route-label = common-routing
> [...]
>
> It's kind of a kludge since the two sites cannot serve different
> apps under the same path but other than that it's already working.
>
> Extending support for the routing system among request plugins,
> in particular the CGI one, would be really awesome.
> --
> Guido Berhoerster
> _______________________________________________
> uWSGI mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
>

I have just committed the cgi and cgihelper routing actions.

I am not sure of the implications about SCRIPT_NAME and PATH_INFO

Let me know if there is something wrong

-- 
Roberto De Ioris
http://unbit.it
_______________________________________________
uWSGI mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi

Reply via email to