It should also be nice if you consider to adapt the session realm logic (if it is the case) that I've adopted overriding hunchentoot in CLAW, so that I can remove the overriding file from my project.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Andrea Chiumenti kiuma72@gmail.com wrote:
In my case, as I'm developing CLAW, using mod_proxy instead of mod_lisp shouldn't be a problem.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Edi Weitz edi@agharta.de wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:24:30 +0200, Ralf Mattes rm@seid-online.de wrote:
Yes, I _thought_ that was clear. I've to admit that we are currently not using mod_lisp, just the standalone version, but it gives me a cozzy feeling to know that I _could_ get tighter integration once need arises.
Have you actually used mod_lisp for something like that before? I asked because I couldn't really come up with a convincing case where you'd get tighter Apache integration that way. I've done quite a lot of Apache hacking in my pre-Lisp life, but working with something like mod_perl or writing your own modules in C is certainly different from using mod_lisp.
tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel