Heya Mike, On Sun 17 Oct 2010 22:05, Mike Gran <spk...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Writing yet another webserver for fun is one thing, but, writing yet > another webserver for inclusion in Guile is the path of madness, because > you'd be implying that it is, in some sense, validated. A webserver > is oh so deceptively simple... But looking at the http11 parser > in Mongrel2, for example, shows how it is harder than it looks. Yeah I certainly don't want to bless a web server, or even write a proper one. It would be nice though if we had a *toy* web server. For example, as I mentioned I was setting up my web app, and I just wanted to see if it worked. If I could run a toy server and check that it worked, that would be great. Then I could choose mongrel2 or nginx or whatever with fastcgi or mod_proxy or whatever, and I have some freedom in that respect, because I know that somewhere there is a (lambda (request) ...) that doesn't care much about how the actual web server is implemented. You could be right though, this might be a bad idea. But at the very least we do need an HTTP client in Guile if we are ever to make an ELPA-alike (or cpan-alike, if you prefer), and for that we need a URI lib, an http client, perhaps request and response object, base64 and mime encoding, etc. > BTW, I haven't tried it yet, but, a Guile / Mongrel2 could make for > a great platform, with not too much glue code. Yeah that sounds like fun! Microhttpd also sounds interesting for toy usage, will check it out. Peace, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
