Is there some way to use tbnl with lighttpd? I've attempted using it through mod_proxy, but haven't had any luck yet.
Thanks, -Adam
On 2005-09-07 21:30:55, Adam Thorsen wrote:
Is there some way to use tbnl with lighttpd? I've attempted using it through mod_proxy, but haven't had any luck yet.
What have you tried?
I had no problems with it. Just put mod_proxy into server.modules and then write a simple config entry like
proxy.server = ( "" => ( ( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5757 ) ) )
This example matches _everything_ that connects to the web server and directs it to a running CL-WIKI (default port 5757).
Which version of TBNL do you use?
Regards, Stefan
I am using tbnl-0.5.5.
Ok, I start tbnl like so:
TBNL> (tbnl:start-tbnl) #<KMRCL:LISTENER port 3000> TBNL>
I configure lighttpd.conf like so:
$HTTP["host"] == "website.com" {
proxy.debug = 1 proxy.server = ( "" => ( ("host" => "144.202.242.43","port" => 3000) )
)
}
But I just get a blank page instead of the default tbnl page.
lightthpd error log shows(I have turned on proxy.debug):
On 9/8/05, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wro2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.1000) proxy - start 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.1036) proxy - ext found 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.1079) proxy - used fair balancing 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.1156) proxy - found a host 144.202.242.43 3000 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.380) connect delayed: 7 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.915) proxy: fdevent-out 1 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.728) proxy - connect - delayed success 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.882) proxy: fdevent-in 4 2005-09-08 10:27:15: (mod_proxy.c.568) proxy - have to read: 0
If I go directly to port 3000 it works as expected.
-Adam
te:
On 2005-09-07 21:30:55, Adam Thorsen wrote:
Is there some way to use tbnl with lighttpd? I've attempted using it through mod_proxy, but haven't had any luck yet.
What have you tried?
I had no problems with it. Just put mod_proxy into server.modules and then write a simple config entry like
proxy.server = ( "" => ( ( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5757 ) ) )
This example matches _everything_ that connects to the web server and directs it to a running CL-WIKI (default port 5757).
Which version of TBNL do you use?
Regards, Stefan
tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:08:40 +0200, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wrote:
I had no problems with it. Just put mod_proxy into server.modules and then write a simple config entry like
proxy.server = ( "" => ( ( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5757 ) ) )
This example matches _everything_ that connects to the web server and directs it to a running CL-WIKI (default port 5757).
Just out of curiosity: What is the advantage of going through lighthttpd (instead of connecting to TBNL directly)?
Thanks, Edi.
The advantage is that then I can also run my RoR site on the same server :)
-Adam
On 9/8/05, Edi Weitz edi@agharta.de wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:08:40 +0200, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wrote:
I had no problems with it. Just put mod_proxy into server.modules and then write a simple config entry like
proxy.server = ( "" => ( ( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5757 ) ) )
This example matches _everything_ that connects to the web server and directs it to a running CL-WIKI (default port 5757).
Just out of curiosity: What is the advantage of going through lighthttpd (instead of connecting to TBNL directly)?
Thanks, Edi. _______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
On 2005-09-08 12:36:52, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:08:40 +0200, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wrote:
proxy.server = ( "" => ( ( "host" => "127.0.0.1", "port" => 5757 ) ) )
Just out of curiosity: What is the advantage of going through lighthttpd (instead of connecting to TBNL directly)?
This was just a test. But in the real world all the Apache + mod_proxy/mod_lisp arguments are valid.
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:40:12 +0200, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wrote:
But in the real world all the Apache + mod_proxy/mod_lisp arguments are valid.
In the real world I would expect the Apache/mod_lisp combo to be more efficient and secure than the other methods.