Hi Ben,
yes, in this particular case, I am moving from `rmarkdown` and `servr`
to `litedown` and (internal http server), which will remove 30 dependencies.
```
base = utils::installed.packages(priority = "base") |> rownames()
litedown = tools::package_dependencies("litedown", recursive = TRUE)
setdiff(
tools::package_dependencies(c("rmarkdown" , "servr"), recursive =
TRUE) |> unlist(),
c(base, litedown)
) |> length()
```
I will check the Rserve. It is described as socket server and I didn't
get into reading into sockets yet, so I didn't look deeper.
-- Jirka
On 9/12/24 09:19, Ben Bolker wrote:
I absolutely appreciate the desire for minimalism. On the other
hand Rserve has no dependencies other than R >= 1.5.0 (!!!), so you
would in any case be cutting your dependencies way down (`servr` has
16 recursive dependencies of which 5 seem to be base/recommended,
presumably this is where your count of 12 came from; `Rserve` has none).
On 12/8/24 14:57, Jiří Moravec wrote:
Dear Simon and Jeroen,
thank you for your answers. I have to reiterate that I am out of my
depth in here. My knowledge of http is clicking links and not much
beyond that.
I will definitely look into `webutils` and `Rserve`.
One of the reason why I brought this issue is that I have a static
site generator that uses the pkg `servr` to serve the static site
locally, before I push it to github pages.
This allowed me to remove some 12 dependencies.
For this, the internal R webserver seems to be completely sufficient
and I thought that it would be nice to have this functionality
without it being "illegal" (i.e., replacing internal function)
and possibly documented so that the limitations are clear.
As for the limitations, IMHO when implemented as I did
(Sys.sleep(Inf), setting path, and reset on exit), it behaves like
most shiny apps I saw, or many apps in general.
So when I think about it as kind of user interface within browser
instead of written in something like tcl/tk instead of a part of
internet infrastructure, it feels quite sufficient to me.
Lately, I have been quite minimalist and I found a great joy finding
that base is quite bit more powerful than people often think so, so I
am quite happy finding out that the internal R server is fully
sufficient for me,
but can't speak for other people and their intended use.
So we can leave it at that. Maybe in few more years when I am more
familiar with web architecture and R internals, I can make a better
argument, hopefully followed with some rad code.
-- Jirka
On 6/12/24 20:05, Simon Urbanek wrote:
Jiří,
in a sense there are two quite different issue that you are touching
upon. On one hand, your request for exposing the http server is
something I was pretty much expecting. In order to judge the
appetite for it I have included the support for custom handlers back
then as inofficial API specifically so that if anyone cares we could
work on refining it (really only Jeff and Hadley ever asked and/or
provided feedback). But I would argue over time it became more clear
that it's probably not the way to go.
The real problem is that we don't really want to "just" expose the
server because of the implications that you mentioned indirectly:
the server is deliberately run in the current R session - which is
pretty much exactly what we want for the help system, but it is
something that is in most cases undesirable for several reasons.
Firstly, normal R user does not expect http requests to mess with
their analysis (e.g. changing the working directory would certainly
not be welcome), so we don't want random code to execute and
interfere with user's work. Secondly, http services are usually
expected to be scalable and not interfere with each other - which is
not possible directly here with the server as-is since it is fully
serial within the user's session. What is truly desired strongly
depends on the use-case: some applications would prefer a forked
session for each connection, other may want co-operation in a
separate environment. It is all doable, but beyond the scope of R's
internal http server.
Moreover the internal http server is based on the Rserve package and
you always have much larger flexibility there. There are also higher
level abstractions like RestRserve. So if you like the internal
server then you can seamlessly use Rserve as the API was derived
from there. Of course there are other alternatives in package space
like httpuv. We typically don't want to fold things into core R
unless it's absolutely necessary - i.e., if they can happily live in
package space.
In short, I'm still not convinced that you really want to use the
built-in sever. Although it is a fully featured http server, it was
included for a very specific purpose, and it's not clear that it
would be a good fit for other purposes.
That said, I'm interested in ideas about what users would want to
use it for. There may be use-cases which do fit the design so we
could make it happen. I would recommend looking at Rserve first,
because anything implemented there is trivial to add to R (as it is
the same code base) if it would make sense. So I'm open to
suggestions, but they should be centered around what cannot be done
already.
Cheers,
Simon
On Dec 5, 2024, at 2:43 PM, Jiří Moravec <jiri.c.mora...@gmail.com>
wrote:
R has a native HTTP server that is used for serving R help pages
interactively, at least on the loopback device (127.0.0.1)
But all of the working are internal, not exposed to user and not
documented.
This is quite shame since the server seems to be fully capable of
handling basic tasks,
be it serving static websites or even interactively processing
queries.
This was previously noticed by Jeffry Horner, the author of the
Rook package.
I am just a guy who found it interesting.
The basic working is as follows:
User needs to either overwrite the internal `tools:::httpd`
function or add their hook into the internal environment
tools:::.httpd.handlers.env.
In the former case, the user will be of a full control of the
server, in the later case, the `app` will be hooked to
`/custom/app` instead.
All that is needed then is to run the interactive help that starts
the webserver.
Based on the breadcrumbs left on the way, I was able to write a
server that emulates much more complex `servr` package that I have
previously used to test locally my blog.
https://gist.github.com/J-Moravec/497d71f4a4b7a204235d093b3fa69cc3
You can see that I am forced to do some illegal procedures:
* tools:::httpd needs to be replaced
* the server doesn't have knowledge of a directory so setwd needs
to be set
* the function must not end, otherwise the directory is changed
during the server lifetime (and depends on the current working
directory)
I would like to suggest and probe for willingness to expose the
native http server.
This would include:
* de-hardcoding the server so that we can register other functions
not just httpd
* exporting many functions and renaming them (such as mime_type)
* writing better interfaces, `startDynamicHelp` is kind of hard to
work with, something like httpd_start(dir, fun, port),
httpd_stop(port) and httpd_status(port) would be much cleaner.
I would like to say that I have no idea what I am doing, I don't
understand webtech or the internal implementation, so if there are
reasons why this isn't a great idea...
I am happy to make a PR for the R part. https://github.com/wch/r-
source/blob/trunk/src/library/tools/R/dynamicHelp.R
The C part with the R's C internals look to me like a black magic
and I don't feel confident enough.
https://github.com/wch/r-source/blob/
trunk/src/modules/internet/Rhttpd.c
See this old stackoverflow answer, where someone was looking for
`python -m SimpleHTTPServer 8080`
https://stackoverflow.com/q/12636764/4868692
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
