Re^3: is Plack really necessary?

The configuration on the linked page shows nginx connecting to hypnotoad using proxy_pass, which connects to the back-end service using HTTP. This is also indicated by the backend having an http://... URL and the proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto "http"; configuration setting.

Comment on Re^3: is Plack really necessary? Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: is Plack really necessary? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 27, 2018 at 11:32 UTC
so there's no need for low level uwsgi/psgi protocol use?	[reply]
Re^5: is Plack really necessary? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Apr 27, 2018 at 16:23 UTC
Define need. You give up a large, growing, highly configurable, and easily extended amount of utilities by forsaking Plack and while I have never used hypnotoad except in playing around with mojo development it's difficult to imagine it's better than uWSGI in terms of stability and performance; judging by the docs, Mojo::Server::Hypnotoad, hypnotoad, it isn't even on the same planet for features. I looked around a little and couldn't find any performance or reliability metrics. As always, it's up to you and hypnotoad might be perfectly fine for what you want to do. Update, obligatory overkill example: Re: Serving multiple Plack apps, Catalyst, Mojolicious, PHP, and CGI all served by a single server using Plack tools.	[reply]
Re^6: is Plack really necessary? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 28, 2018 at 09:28 UTC
So with Starman involved, is this the correct diagram? Nginx <--> HTTP <--> Starman <--> Plackup/PSGI <--> Dancer <--> Code	[reply]
Re^7: is Plack really necessary? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Apr 28, 2018 at 11:35 UTC
Re^8: is Plack really necessary? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 28, 2018 at 17:38 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


Your skill will accomplish what the force of many cannot
	PerlMonks