> * Roberto De Ioris <[email protected]> [2013-04-03
> 10:28]:
>>
>>> * Roberto De Ioris
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> [2013-04-03
>>> 09:54]:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> if a docroot is set via check-static or check-static-docroot is
>>>>> there a way to use CGI mountpoints to map URIs to CGI directories
>>>>> outside that docroot?
>>>>> I would like to enable CGI scripts generally for existing scripts
>>>>> inside the docroot but at the same time also have some URIs
>>>>> mapping to system paths as e.g.
>>>>> http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/CGI.html#example-7-mailman-web-interface-behind-nginx
>>>>> --
>>>>> Guido Berhoerster
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> uWSGI mailing list
>>>>> uWSGI-FfzAktRlpg7/[email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are able to specify all of the "cgi" mountpoint you need:
>>>>
>>>> [uwsgi]
>>>> cgi = /var/www
>>>> cgi = /mailman/=/usr/lib/mailman/cgis
>>>> cgi = /cgi-bin=/usr/lib/cgi-bin
>>>
>>> Sorry, I was wrong, it's not check-static-docroot but
>>> cgi-from-docroot which prevents additional mountpoints from
>>> working. Is that actually intentional and is there a way to make
>>> both cgi-from-docroot and additional mountpoints work?
>>>
>>
>> Oh ok, yes cgi-from-docroot disables all the others check, and no, there
>> is no specific reason for it (it was what i needed for my company at
>> time)
>> ;)
>>
>> In your case i think a "fallback" approach would be better, so uWSGI
>> starts scanning the cgi mountpoints and if nothing is found it fallback
>> do
>> the docroot.
>>
>> Seems reasonable ?
>
> Yes, that seems to be logical behavior.
> There's one additional, related issue, I would like to make these
> mountpoints conditional on a virtualhost/docroot, i.e. I have one
> uwsgi vassal per user which serves multiple sites but the
> mountpoint should only be valid for one of the virtual hosts.
> With some limitations I can already achieve that for WSGI through
> the new routing system but apparently not for CGI scripts, any
> ideas how that could be solved? Should I open an RFE on the
> bugtracker to discuss this?
> --
> Guido Berhoerster
The current "approach" (instead of implementing virtualhosting in each
plugin) is exposing (where possibile) request plugins even to the routing
api.
We already have static:, xslt:, gridfs:, ssi:...
I think cgi: could be a great addition to versatility:
route-if = equal:${HTTP_HOST};uwsgi.it goto:uwsgi.it
route-run = break:
route-label = uwsgi.it
route-if = endswith:${PATH_INFO};.cgi cgi:/usr/lib/cgi-bin/${PATH_INFO}
and so on
--
Roberto De Ioris
http://unbit.it
_______________________________________________
uWSGI mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
