Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > Why do we want to have another ad-hoc HTTP implementation? Wouldn't a > small *CGI script be good enough?
Argument for a separate implementation: it runs as a standalone daemon
on a different port than the default for HTTP, as a decoupled service
from your normal httpd. Argument against: a CGI script would allow you
too hook it into your favourite httpd, which could do all sorts of
advanced stuff to requests before they hit the CGI script, like
aliasing, rewriting, filtering, caching, etc..
Personally, I'd prefer a CGI script; though I do not at present desire
to run a HKP server. I am satisfied with the various SKS servers out there.
Cheers,
--
Thomas E. Spanjaard
t...@netphreax.net
t...@deepbone.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
