Cherokee Web Server

Eric S. Johansson | 3 Mar 2006 15:06

Re: New project: proxy-cache handler

César Fernández Gago wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hi there :)
> 
>    I'm glad to announce a new sub-project inside the Cherokee project.
>    We are about to start working on a proxy-cache handler which will
> follow the save architectural bases and philosophy as the rest of
> the project: it will be modular, extensible with plug-ins and we
> will try to make it as faster as possible.

err, um, err, having been burned by embedded proxies 
*coff*apachesucks*coff*, I am quite nervous about this feature.  I'm 
using pound because it fails safe unlike *coff* and since it lets me 
sleep at night, I suggest maybe integrating/supporting pound features 
would be a good thing for cherokee.  good solid load balancing proxy 
with a long history of doing things right playing nice with good solid 
web server.  what's not to like?

*coff*fookenpapacheproxy*coff*

---eric

headers

Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 Mar 2006 15:46

Re: New project: proxy-cache handler

Eric S. Johansson wrote:

 >> I'm glad to announce a new sub-project inside the Cherokee project.
 >> We are about to start working on a proxy-cache handler which will
 >> follow the save architectural bases and philosophy as the rest of
 >> the project: it will be modular, extensible with plug-ins and we
 >> will try to make it as faster as possible.
 >
 > err, um, err, having been burned by embedded proxies
 > *coff*apachesucks*coff*, I am quite nervous about this feature.

   I've been working with Rodrigo and Cesar on this idea for a while.
   I mean, not real working, but brain-storming and discussing. We've
   filled out a lot of blackboards in order to find the best approach.
   The conclusion was that Cherokee is flexible enough to accept that
   sort of handler, and I have to say that I do believe it is really to
   run the proxy handler.

 > I'm using pound because it fails safe unlike *coff* and since it
 > lets me sleep at night, I suggest maybe integrating/supporting pound
 > features would be a good thing for cherokee.  good solid load
 > balancing proxy with a long history of doing things right playing
 > nice with good solid web server.  what's not to like?

   The idea to build it exactly as Cherokee is built. It will be up to
   you whether you want to cache the content or not, what type and
   properties it has and so on.

   I think the proxy-cache handler good idea, and definitely something
   useful for the project.  For example, Cherokee should support to be

(Continue reading)

headers

Eric S. Johansson | 3 Mar 2006 16:04

Re: New project: proxy-cache handler

Alvaro Lopez Ortega wrote:
>   I've been working with Rodrigo and Cesar on this idea for a while.
>   I mean, not real working, but brain-storming and discussing. We've
>   filled out a lot of blackboards in order to find the best approach.
>   The conclusion was that Cherokee is flexible enough to accept that
>   sort of handler, and I have to say that I do believe it is really to
>   run the proxy handler.

no doubt.  I will admit that the pluging arch is still a bit unclear to 
me but when it becomes important enough, I'll figure it out.

>   The idea to build it exactly as Cherokee is built. It will be up to
>   you whether you want to cache the content or not, what type and
>   properties it has and so on.
> 
>   I think the proxy-cache handler good idea, and definitely something
>   useful for the project.  For example, Cherokee should support to be
>   on front of a bunch of IIS servers to serve static content and pass
>   the ASP requests to them.
> 
>   If we aren't missing something important, the result will be,
>   hopefully, pretty good 

indeed.  don't forget to deny proxying to port 25 even if the user asks 
for it whether they intended to or not.  also, it would be nice if you 
followed the pound mode of adding the real request source IP to the http 
request: http://www.apsis.ch/pound/

REQUEST LOGGING

(Continue reading)

headers

Alvaro Lopez Ortega | 3 Mar 2006 17:23

Re: New project: proxy-cache handler

Eric S. Johansson wrote:

 >>   The idea to build it exactly as Cherokee is built. It will be up
 >>   to you whether you want to cache the content or not, what type
 >>   and properties it has and so on.
 >>
 >>   I think the proxy-cache handler good idea, and definitely something
 >>   useful for the project.  For example, Cherokee should support to be
 >>   on front of a bunch of IIS servers to serve static content and pass
 >>   the ASP requests to them.
 >>
 >>   If we aren't missing something important, the result will be,
 >>   hopefully, pretty good 
 >
 > indeed.  don't forget to deny proxying to port 25 even if the user
 > asks for it whether they intended to or not.  also, it would be nice
 > if you followed the pound mode of adding the real request source IP
 > to the http request: http://www.apsis.ch/pound/

   Yeah, I guess we'll be better citizens if we forbid to use CONNECT
   to the port 25. '

 > REQUEST LOGGING
 >
 > As a general rule, Pound passes all headers as they arrive from the
 > client browser to the back-end server(s). There are two exceptions to
 > this rule: Pound may add information about the SSL client certificate
 > (as described below), and it will add an X-Forwarded-For header. The
 > general format is:
 >

(Continue reading)