Re: [RFC/PATCHv3] git-instaweb: Add support for running gitweb via 'plackup'

From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Date: May 23, 2010, 09:19 UTC
Message-ID: <20100523091812.GA3426@dcvr.yhbt.net>
In-Reply-To: <201005222330.43532.jnareb@gmail.com>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> On Thu, 20 May 2010, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> 
> > The configuration for 'plackup' is currently embedded in generated
> > gitweb.psgi wrapper, instead of using httpd.conf ($conf).
> 
> A question: is this solution acceptable?  Or should the configuration
> (port, address if git-instaweb was run with '--local', root) be in
> a separate file.

Hi Jakub,

Yes, the psgi wrapper is acceptable and probably ideal.

My understanding is that the .psgi file is analogous to a .ru file in the (Ruby) Rack world[1], and having only a .ru file is probably how I would add Rack support to git-instaweb if WEBrick weren't in Ruby core[2].

Show 5 quoted lines

> Webrick, which is in similar situation, uses httpd.conf config file in 
> YAML.  Unfortunately there is no config / serialization reader in Perl
> core, so if we have to go this route either the config file would have
> to be in Perl, or gitweb.psgi wrapper would have to include some simple
> config file parsing.

I don't think we need parsing in the gitweb.psgi wrapper, we'll just consider gitweb.psgi the config file. This is also the case for Rack .ru files, which can be made executable and have a shebang pointing to "rackup".

[1] - I'm not familiar with Plack/PSGI at all, but I've been dabbling
      quite a bit in Rack over the past year or two.

[2] - of course since WEBrick is in Ruby core and WEBrick supports CGI
      scripts out-of-the-box (unlike Rack), adding Rack support to
      instaweb would be a waste of time.

-- 
Eric Wong