Subject: Re: OT: Re: rails-like framework - msg#00091

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: rails-like framework

On 4/22/06, Peter Busser <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > For instance, in many companies, it is mandatory to use something like > Apache. It would be useful if this framework would work with the SCGI egg, > so it can be integrated with Apache through the mod-scgi module for Apache. Has anybody benchmarked Apache vs. Spiffy? (Hopefully a compiled spiffy to get the best results, and only static html for the test.)

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: rails-like framework

Hi! On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:15:26AM -0700, Shawn Rutledge wrote: > On 4/22/06, Peter Busser <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For instance, in many companies, it is mandatory to use something like > > Apache. It would be useful if this framework would work with the SCGI egg, > > so it can be integrated with Apache through the mod-scgi module for Apache. > Has anybody benchmarked Apache vs. Spiffy? (Hopefully a compiled > spiffy to get the best results, and only static html for the test.) Not me. But I bet that Apache is much faster than Spiffy with static content, because I think it uses system specific optimisations like e.g. sendfile(). Apache is likely to scale better too. Groetjes, Peter.

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: OT: Re: rails-like framework

On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0200, J?rg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Dear all, > > who are interested in a decent web programming framework in Scheme. > > We've been spending quite a while on such a thing and I'm simply not the > person to brag about my part of work (which has been too much), maybe > that's the reason it makes me sad watching you people here calling for > it in *chicken*. That makes my posting off topic. But I can't resist, > since you really don't know what you are missing right next door: > > There's a web programming framework in rscheme. I've been close to a > chicken port once. And I'm longing for it, since I hope we could > eventually leverage the larger user base to fasten development instead > of working almost like proprietary developers, though we've been open > source from the very beginning. (To be fair: for the initial > development, a bazar style would not have been helpful, so we did not > try.) I've taken a look at the Askemos webpage and read your description a number of times, but I can't really grasp *what* Askemos is exactly. Is it an operating system, a language, a web development framework, a system to make concurrent programming reliable or a system that makes it easy to use a number of redundant servers? Or is it all of these things? I'm sorry if I sound stupid and I don't mean to insult, but I really don't understand what Askemos does. I think I speak for everyone here if I say that we want a system that is *easy* to hack. It should be simple and lightweight, just like Chicken itself. What makes Scheme interesting is that it's small enough to fit in your head and nevertheless is powerful enough to do anything you want. A web framework in Scheme should have the same qualities. Regards, Peter -- http://www.student.ru.nl/peter.bex -- "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic experience much like composing poetry or music." -- Donald Knuth pgpGYHu9j0s1G.pgp Description: PGP signature _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: OT: Re: rails-like framework

sorry, this was meant to be sent to the mailing list, not private Am Montag, den 24.04.2006, 12:46 +0200 schrieb JÃrg F. Wittenberger: > Am Montag, den 24.04.2006, 08:21 +0200 schrieb felix winkelmann: > > JÃrg, what would be needed to port Askemos to Chicken > > (not that I have time for this, but I'd like to know anyway... ;-) > > > > ? > > I placed a tarball at the askemos web site, which contains an directory > with chicken modules and makefile. This directory used to build about > 30 month ago. I'm afraid it will no longer. > > There are a few things, which should probably be redone. The sandbox > interpreter, UTF-8 come to mind. C FFI work: sha256, libmagic, sqlite. > Many things will be API glue code. Also persistent storage: rscheme has > pstore, chickens evict might be helpful to reduce load time. But that's > less priority, since it's optional. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that > more issues will pop up as we go. I recall e.g., the leventhshein egg > not deploying some obvious optimisation and beeing deadly incompatible > with user level threading. I vaguely recall apparent slow i/o on > chicken and never could pin it down and I recall askemos/ball triggering > some age old bug in rscheme's i/o and pstore code. Who knows what's > coming next. > > A real problem will be how to implement time constraints for certain > operations. There are two kind of operations, which may need to > asynchronous termination: network activity and user supplied code. In > any case, we need to make sure the dynamic wind stack is properly > cleaned. This is an open questions for rscheme too: if the timeout > exception is raised during the execution of the post hook of a dynamic > wind, just before the actual post hooks code is executed, the post hook > is not executed at all, which ist just the opposite of the intention. I > guess: Felix, here we depend on you anyway. ;-/ > > Cheers > > /JÃrg > > > > > > > cheers, > > felix > > > > On 4/22/06, JÃrg F. Wittenberger <Joerg.Wittenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am Samstag, den 22.04.2006, 17:09 +0200 schrieb Peter Bex: > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 04:21:02PM +0200, J?rg F. Wittenberger wrote: > > > ... > > > > I've taken a look at the Askemos webpage and read your description a > > > > number of times, but I can't really grasp *what* Askemos is exactly. > > > > Is it an operating system, a language, a web development framework, a > > > > system to make concurrent programming reliable or a system that makes > > > > it easy to use a number of redundant servers? Or is it all of these > > > > things? > > > > > > It's all of these. Well the easy part is still sort of questionable. > > > Depends on what you compare. > > > > > > If you look at it from 3000 feet, you see an operating system, because > > > an operating system manages computer resources. As such it has been > > > hard all the times to distinguish between operating system and language > > > implementation. As long as we talk about assembler or C, things are > > > clear, but when you add threads and garbage collection, the difference > > > blurs away. At the other hand: expect funny reactions when telling > > > people "this OS is written in Scheme". > > > > > > If you look at it as an application developer, you always see it though > > > some HTTP/S request response scheme. So web dev framework applies. > > > Since that's what we do to make our living, this aspect gets better over > > > time. > > > > > > So it's a reliable distributed - Ãhm, uh... - app server? > > > > > > Actually Askemos is only the concept: all objects (be them documents or > > > processes) of a legal system (to be modelled) are represented at a > > > "place" (which is basically an agent/object, serves as either deed, file > > > or process). Certain properties are ensured by the agreement protocol: > > > clear authorship, tamper proofed, no rights escalation, no corruption, > > > agreed execution. There's a VM, which defines how processes are > > > executed. Beeing XML it's as language and hardware independent as it > > > can get. Anything would be better but that's why XML is the worst > > > common denominator everybody accepts as readable. (The > > > "Justizkommunikationsgesetz" [would this be "justice comunication > > > act" ??] for instance defines for Germany that XML would be acceptable. > > > Not much else.) > > > > > > Beyond the VM-Level we stop talking about Askemos itself. There are two > > > more levels the protocol (http+extension) and the implementation (ball). > > > If we distinguish these, we come closer to the questions. > > > > > > Yes, this should be visible at the web site. Thanks for asking. > > > > > > Hm, now I'm in trouble: one says "drop the ball part" from the page, > > > here it's back. > > > > > > > I'm sorry if I sound stupid and I don't mean to insult, but I really > > > > don't understand what Askemos does. I think I speak for everyone here > > > > if I say that we want a system that is *easy* to hack. It should be > > > > simple and lightweight, just like Chicken itself. What makes Scheme > > > > interesting is that it's small enough to fit in your head and > > > > nevertheless is powerful enough to do anything you want. A web > > > > framework in Scheme should have the same qualities. > > > > > > Agreed. That's our goal as well. At the application level it's not > > > that hard. All you do usually: put all you stuff in a webdav folder. > > > Start on of you Scheme scripts as a process and you are done. There's > > > no principal difference to other frame works. Except for completeness. > > > > > > If you need to access C libraries or other compiled code, you need to > > > export it properly. Not too hard either, I'd say. > > > > > > Let's put it that way: once they got it up and running, a few people > > > liked it. That's good and bad: good for as relative success, bad for > > > the total amount. > > > > > > But it runs single host as well. And that is at least supposed to work > > > out of the box. > > > > > > /JÃrg > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Chicken-users mailing list > > > Chicken-users@xxxxxxxxxx > > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > > > > >