Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove servers #1658

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 24, 2020
Merged

Remove servers #1658

merged 1 commit into from May 24, 2020

Conversation

@ioquatix
Copy link
Member

@ioquatix ioquatix commented May 24, 2020

No description provided.

@ioquatix ioquatix force-pushed the ioquatix:remove-servers branch from d14a319 to 31a7921 May 24, 2020
@ioquatix
Copy link
Member Author

@ioquatix ioquatix commented May 24, 2020

@tenderlove I could not remove the CGI handler without breaking a ton of specs, so I have left it in place for now.

However, one thing it did bring attention to is how ancient and "specific" the Rack::Server and Rack::Handler code is. For example, some of the specs are testing webrick by sending interrupts to the current process, while running webrick in a thread. It's not particularly elegant.

I have a moderately strong feeling to remove rackup to it's own gem, along with the remaining handlers and tests.

Good because:

  • Smaller surface area for core rack (less potential for CVEs)
  • Easier to maintain.

Bad because:

  • Users cannot use rackup (does anyone use it much?) without installing separate gem.

Thoughts?

@ioquatix ioquatix merged commit 98d9cf5 into rack:master May 24, 2020
16 checks passed
16 checks passed
test (ubuntu-latest, 2.4)
Details
test (ubuntu-latest, 2.5)
Details
test (ubuntu-latest, 2.6)
Details
test (ubuntu-latest, 2.7)
Details
test (ubuntu-latest, jruby)
Details
test (ubuntu-latest, truffleruby-head)
Details
test (macos-latest, 2.4)
Details
test (macos-latest, 2.5)
Details
test (macos-latest, 2.6)
Details
test (macos-latest, 2.7)
Details
test (macos-latest, jruby)
Details
test (macos-latest, truffleruby-head)
Details
external (ubuntu-latest, 2.6)
Details
external (ubuntu-latest, 2.7)
Details
external (macos-latest, 2.6)
Details
external (macos-latest, 2.7)
Details
@ioquatix ioquatix deleted the ioquatix:remove-servers branch May 24, 2020
@jeremyevans
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeremyevans jeremyevans commented May 24, 2020

I'm against moving rackup to another gem. I think you would be surprised how many users use rackup.

Have you setup a gem for the removed servers? If not, I expect we'll receive pushback when Rack 3.0 is released.

@ioquatix
Copy link
Member Author

@ioquatix ioquatix commented May 24, 2020

Have you setup a gem for the removed servers? If not, I expect we'll receive pushback when Rack 3.0 is released.

We discussed this and you said not to bother.

I don't think there is need to do that. We may want to reach out to the gem authors of the handlers and ask them to include the rack handler in their library if they want to support it. If not, users that want to continue using the handlers can copy the old version and maintain their own gem.

@jeremyevans
Copy link
Collaborator

@jeremyevans jeremyevans commented May 24, 2020

Ah, OK. :)

@ioquatix
Copy link
Member Author

@ioquatix ioquatix commented May 24, 2020

I guess we should let @macournoyer know this has finally landed.

I was added as a maintainer of thin but I have little time to support it. That being said, I think there are a few options to consider:

While we would try to minimise breaking changes to server code in Rack 3 (nightmare for server maintainers to support Rack 1 - 3 if there are breaking changes), it's likely some changes will be required. So, if we can't find maintainer/support for thin, I recommend archive it to avoid users getting frustrated.

@macournoyer
Copy link
Member

@macournoyer macournoyer commented May 24, 2020

No worries, I’ll take care of update Thin. Thanks for the heads up!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.