Re: Lilypond Server

[Szabó Árpád Zoltán]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua KooOOoOOo" <address@hidden>
>
> Possibles of disadvantages of HTTP upload method I think of is 1) Slower
2) File Size Limit 3) More java coding on the client side.

~~~
1) and 2) is agreed but can live with it, 3) could you explain it? I mean
using simple HTTP upload requires nothing more than a standard web form with
<input type='file'>
Of course more flexibility can be provided within a java applet. (Selecting
more than one files, upload monitor etc.)
~~~

> However, it doesnt mean I against the web-based LilyPond. For now I think
that lets say you are on windows, you only need a LilyTool for jEdit, (with
has all the wizards and synatax colouring), it will be simple for you to use
Lilypond. Lets say on a Linux machine which have problems installing
Lilypond, perphaps a small python client script could be ran like "python
LilyPondClient.py foo.ly".
>
> Of course, if you can come up with php for Lilypond, I would like to
change like LilyTool to implement the HTTP upload method. But I wonder how
you will implement the php? Will you call the Lilypond process stright from
php [proc_open()]? or would you open a socket to connect to a Lilypond
Server [fopen() or socket_create()]

~~~
My idea was to have a single machine which has web server (with PHP) *and*
lilypond installed on it. I can use eg. [system("/path_to_lily/lilypond
just_uploaded_lilyfile.ly")]. Then I let PHP to read the output files, and
create a html report with links to them.
With your ASCII keys:

L <--P <--W

This could even be a first step to either Scenario  #1 or  #2.
[I have to admit that I haven't ever used socket connections, so this may be
the reason I leave it out of my thinking, but I understand how much more
advanced systems can be built over them.]
~~~

> For a ASCII representation
> Key: L=Lilypond, S=Lilypond Server, M= Lilypond Server & Manager, P=PHP
Webby, W=Webpage User, T=LilyTool user
>
> # Scenario 1
>
> L <-- S -->  M <-- P <-- W
> L <-- S -/          \-- T
>
> Here, the Manager itself could be a Lilypond Server, but also could
delicate jobs to other Lilypond Servers and acting like a relay or proxy.
Clients could connect to this manager and webbase users use the webpage
which uses the manager.
>
> # Scenario 2
>
> L <--------\
> L <-- S <-- P <-- W
> L <-- S <-/      \-- T
>
> This case, the php webbie acts as a lilypond server (and manager for
clustering).
>
> Anyway, these are what I have in mind, I not a good programmer or
designer, so this mostly have flaws.

> >This way or the other, the main question is: Who is willing to provide
> >bandwith for (at least) a proof-of-concept site? I consider this a superb
> >way to demonstrate for many people what can be done with LilyPond.
> Or, do you mean a test machine as well? My school gave me a P2 300mhz pc,
64Mb, but its harddisk is not working and cd-rom does not boot up. I might
try to fixing it and setting it up as a POC, and also if my upload speed of
10KBytes/s at home wont be too much of a disappointment.

~~~
I need an online computer with Apache-Php-Lilypond installed on it. I could
turn my own machine to it (actually I did it), only problem that I have a
slow modem connection, which could do it for the first public tests, but I
cannot afford to keep online all the time (money:-().
~~~

> >On the security: the server could be on a unix system, where php/lilypond
> >user doesn't have read access to the whole directory tree, but it is kept
> >restricted in a dedicated place. Doesn't it eliminates the security
danger
> >Berti mentioned? Could somebody explain me please, where I am missing the
> >obvious?
>
> I think its mentioned before there's the danger of having scheme code,
like "rm -rf /". Of course, i think it wouldnt be a problem if a Server is
used just to bridge from the coLinux guest to host machine, but it would be
a trouble on the public access server.
>
> If the server is not run as root, will the scheme run codes as sudo or
root? If there's really a need, then lilypond might have to be jailed and
put in a straight-jacket (meaning the shell and safe mode ;p)

~~~
ROOT? Never! Are there any good reason to run it as root?


--
Árpád