btmantis: from my point of view it was a one-time experiment, and I haven't really used it. Theoretically, @tohl might be interested, but it seems more likely that noone will be.

@vcunat thanks for the clarification. We'll let this stew a few days and then merge unless @tohl says otherwise I guess then.

@tohl no problem, thanks!
@vcunat looking to you for final review and merge if you have the time.

Better not me. I'm relatively scarce on time, and my involvement with http services has been almost non-existent, so I'll prefer working on other nixpkgs stuff.

@GrahamcOfBorg test php-pcre

👍 on removing unmaintained cruft!

I would like us to consider what we can do about making web services more generic.

I have a feeling all Python applications using wsgi could be abstracted in a way that allows the end user of the module to plug it into any web server that supports the wsgi protocol.

The same goes for cgi, reverse proxies and so on.

@adisbladis one thought I had was that the nginx module has some large advantages over httpd in that the virtualHosts option in nginx is an attribute set and httpd is stuck with a list. If httpd and nginx module options were made more similar (or at least compatible) I think that's one way to make web services more generic (though not the only way).

I'm planning on putting in a PR to migrate the services.httpd.virtualHosts to an attribute set like nginx, and possibly some other changes to make the two option sets more similar. Let me know if you're interested in that possible PR, or if you have a better idea for making web services more generic as that is a topic I'm quite interested in.