HTTP VS mini_httpd

HTTP/1.1 was such a game changer for the Internet that it works so well that even through two revisions, RFC 2616 published in June 1999 and RFC 7230– RFC 7235 published in June 2014, HTTP/1.1 was extremely stable until the release of HTTP/2.0 in 2014 — Nearly 18 years later. Before continuing to the next section about HTTP/2.0, let us revisit what journey HTTP/1.1 has been through. - Source: dev.to / 9 months ago

On the one hand, it just seems natural that "upstream" refers to the inbound request being sent from one system to another. It takes effort (connection pooling, throttling, retries, etc.) to make a request to an (upstream) dependency, just as it takes effort to swim upstream. The response is (usually) easy... Just return it... hence, "downstream". Recall the usual meaning of "upload" and "download". Upstream seems... - Source: Hacker News / about 2 years ago

To me it sounds like you’ve not solved this as the config you’ve mentioned is about preventing “illegal” (none RFC7230 ) requests, it isn’t really related to the problem you posted. Source: over 2 years ago

The program you are using to send data to the server may or may not automatically determine the right content-type header for your data, and knowing how to set and check headers is an essential skill. To learn more about the HTTP protocol check out the MDN guide or read the official standard, RFC 7230. - Source: dev.to / over 2 years ago

It's neat, but I don't believe it is a compliant implementation of HTTP/1.1 (or 1.0). For example, it does not handle percent-encoded characters in the request URI.[1][2] [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7230#section-3.1.1 [2]: https://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.0/spec.html#Request-URI. - Source: Hacker News / over 2 years ago

The Web server needs to be lightweight and able to execute code. Mini_httpd is the perfect choice for this! - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago