2 ms·
In my minds eye we would give one dedicated port to the main service. The apps would pick a random unused port, and report back to the main service to which wou
by mbrumlow 7y ago
In my minds eye we would give one dedicated port to the main service. The apps would pick a random unused port, and report back to the main service to which would then become a reverse proxy from the main services port to the bound port.
So if the rsync app bound to 5392, it would report back to the main service so. And it would ensure all (or some subset of request) to rsync.localhost were reverse proxied back to localhost:5392.
For the most part when I say some request I mean most if not all, but it might be nice to have a system level rsync.localhost/.info uri that would give system level information about the app.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoIf we're on the local system anyways, why not just use an actual socket in the file system?
- zonidjan 7y agoIndeed; this also solves the problem of access control. Something like /tmp/notelectron.$EUID with umask 0077.
- mbrumlow 7y agoGood point, at least for the main service app communication. I would still want to maybe be able to reach my computers apps from a remote system.
- johannes1234321 7y agoSince requirement was "works with any browser"
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y agoYeah, but we're just communicating with the local proxy, right? So it'd be browser > HTTP over TCP > proxy > socket > application.