+1 I'm also curious about the differences between those options.
2013/11/12 Aarni Koskela <[email protected]> > Regarding the "Expose it to the public network only if you know what you > are doing." admonition: > > What exactly is the difference between http, http-socket (and > https/https-socket respectively), etc. and which of these might be safe to > expose publicly, and why/why not? > > This would probably make a good addition to the documentation too, perhaps > in the form of an article explaining all the different ways to connect to > and route uWSGI. > > / Aarni > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Roberto De Ioris > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:46 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [uWSGI] [ANNOUNCE] --https-socket > > Hi everyone, in latest HEAD you will find a new native protocol option > named --https-socket. > > This is like --http-socket but (obviously) with ssl support. > > All of the same rules of --https apply (included sni and sessions shared > caching), with the (again obvious) difference that there is no proxy in > place. > > The main usage will be putting uWSGI directly behind a tcp proxy (haproxy, > uwsgi-rawrouter, ...) or for ssl-certificate authentication in intranets. > > Expose it to the public network only if you know what you are doing. > > Special note: > > the protocol is (as expected) async friendly, so Coro::AnyEvent, gevent > and friends will work out of the box > > -- > Roberto De Ioris > http://unbit.it > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi > -- Łukasz Mierzwa
_______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
