On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:27 PM, David Precious <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 21:41 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Hi,
here is an idea that might be interesting.
There are 250 or so PM groups. pm.org currently only offers static web hosting. If a PM group wants something more interesting they need to put it on another server.
What about setting up a server with Dancer and offering the pm groups access to upload the static part of the web site? [...] This would drive the creation of a Dancer based content management system.
What do you think?
Interesting idea indeed, I like it on principle, but if it's basically offering just static stuff, I don't see a big benefit.
Potentially more interesting would be to set up a nice secure box, and let them run a fully dynamic Dancer-powered site, which would run under their account with their privileges only, and have e.g. Nginx as the front end proxying requests to it.
That way, they could do whatever they wanted with Dancer, and, assuming the box is secure and permissions are set correctly, each group should not be able to affect the others (maybe CPU/memory limits would be useful, to catch any runaway code).
I think the biggest problem is finding time to set up and manage such a service, and probable lack of demand from the start. I'd imagine that, in general, whoever controls the site of a PM group has the skills and resources to set up their own site on their own server/VPS, but is probably just lacking the time to do so.
It's entirely possible, however, that providing a quick & easy service might entice them to do more (particularly if we extol the virtues of Dancer's plugin ecosystem).
This actually hits on a more general idea I've had floating in the back of my head for a while - a "turnkey" Dancer hosting service, where you'd simply upload your app, and the service would satisfy pre-requirements and fire up the app (probably using the aforementioned tactic of running it as the user, with their privileges tightly managed.
I think a PSGI hosting service would be cooler. -Naveed
Nginx could run and proxy requests to the app, and perhaps the app itself could be opened up if they wanted to do so, so they could have the option of keeping their domain/hostname pointing to their own server running Nginx/Apache/whatever, and just proxy requests over to the app.
Such a thing could offer basic facilities free, and charge for higher bandwidth/CPU usage, and extra spare worker threads, etc.
Cheers
Dave P
-- David Precious <davidp@preshweb.co.uk> ("bigpresh") http://www.preshweb.co.uk/
_______________________________________________ Dancer-users mailing list Dancer-users@perldancer.org http://www.backup-manager.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/dancer-users