You're right about nginx, a good alternative doesn't really exist. CGI lack
sucks, but they have their reasons. I'd be interested in your standalone
webserver in Go, if you ever start to write it.
On Friday, September 21, 2012, Uriel wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Džen wrote:
> > What
I get your point, but this isn't about writing a web server from scratch
like nginx is. The http libs of Go provide enough to write a small server
for a website like suckless.org or similar, of course not as sophisticated
as nginx is.
On Friday, September 21, 2012, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, S
On Sep 19, 2012 10:51 AM, "Stephen Paul Weber"
wrote:
>
> Somebody claiming to be Uriel wrote:
>>
>> Sadly not all servers speak CGI this days, most notably nginx, and
>> others often have broken CGI support.
>
>
> Oh? I guess I just never tried CGI with nginx.
>
>
Don't you remember when I was
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why not a cloud service?
The communication will be done between desktop components, so using
cloud here is a bit questionable :) But thanks for proposal.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Ivan Kanakarakis
wrote:
> you maybe interes
Well, just to note, wmii+ixp are not hosted on suckless anymore.
There is still the wmii page[0] and archives on the downloads page[1].
The new home is on google-code[2] and maybe you can find some
answers on the bugtracker[3].
There is also #wmii on oftc irc, afaik.
[0]: http://wmii.suckless.org/
> like nginx is. The http libs of Go provide enough to write a small server
> for a website like suckless.org or similar, of course not as sophisticated
why do you trust the go libs so much, did you look at them? did you
make any objective tests of relevant criteria?
Hi,
Why not zeromq? It seems to be light, simple and performant. It also
has extended documentation, and a large community to support it.
Tof
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:53:56PM +0200, Christophe-Marie Duquesne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why not zeromq? It seems to be light, simple and performant. It also
> has extended documentation, and a large community to support it.
>
> Tof
>
Why not a js library
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 03:47:54PM +0200, hiro wrote:
>
> why do you trust the go libs so much, did you look at them? did you
> make any objective tests of relevant criteria?
it's much simpler to blindly assume that the standard library of an
infant programming language is totally approprite for
that would be reinventing the wheel, node.js does already all this and
much more.
* Christophe-Marie Duquesne [2012-09-21 16:00]:
Why not zeromq? It seems to be light, simple and performant. It also
has extended documentation, and a large community to support it.
Allegedly, zeromq puts speed before reliability. Who would really want to use
that?
Regards,
Andreas
if you want reliability don't use a computer.
On 21/09/2012, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you want reliability don't use a computer.
>
if you want reliability don't use the world.
13 matches
Mail list logo
