Feature Req: Include Pipe
nginx at 2xlp.com
Tue Oct 3 02:49:37 MSD 2006
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Including database support directly into nginx doesn't really make
> anything easier; it would make it less flexible, more bloated, and
> harder to build/maintain.
anything smart you'd want to do with database support you could
easily handle with some sort of script to update a local config file
the only webserver that needs something like a pipe is lighttpd,
because it can't (or couldn't, i heard it changed) handle absolute
paths for config file includes. so you had to 'include_shell `cat /
dynamic config files can be a pain too- you don't have a real way to
check their validity for syntax, and stuff can break often within the
code ( lets say it reads a dbm or rdbms connection, and something
goes down or gets corrupted. your server is now down ). personally,
i tend to use scripts to dynamically create configuration files, then
tag them into some sort of versioning system. its way easier to
audit config files that way, and rollback to something functional in
the case of disaster.
some webservers have dynamic database support... they connect to the
db as needed to parse requests. it sounds awesome, until you realize
that its awesomely stupid. the db calls end up blocking the server,
the configuration is a nightmare, and perfomance/usage just sucks.
you also run into another chunk of code that occasionally breaks,
wastes developer time to maintain instead of making other stuff work
better, and makes building on your box a fucking nightmare as you
start getting external dependencies.
More information about the nginx