[tbnl-devel] TBNL survey / re-org
Hi! I'm thinking about re-organizing/purifying the TBNL code-base. It looks pretty messy to me now and I think I could get rid of a couple of things if I find the time. Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right? Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida? Does anybody use it with AllegroCL or some other Lisp I haven't listed above? Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps? Thanks, Edi.
lispworks 4.4.6 / 5.0 on win32, apache 2 + modlisp On 9/5/06, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
Hi!
I'm thinking about re-organizing/purifying the TBNL code-base. It looks pretty messy to me now and I think I could get rid of a couple of things if I find the time.
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right? Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida? Does anybody use it with AllegroCL or some other Lisp I haven't listed above? Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
Thanks, Edi. _______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
SBCL on Ubuntu Dapper Linux, standalone for development, apache 2 + mod_lisp for deployment. Ignas
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 14:49 +0200, Edi Weitz wrote:
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right?
SBCL on Debian GNU/Linux, apache2 + mod_lisp2
Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
I'm interested Thanks. -- Erick Ivaan Lopez Carreon -- erick@fsl.org.mx PGP Key 1024D/9741C03A 2004-11-19 Key fingerprint = 1764 3C6F B433 B2DD 9029 98B1 8E6B 58D3 9741 C03A
On 9/5/06, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
Hi!
I'm thinking about re-organizing/purifying the TBNL code-base. It looks pretty messy to me now and I think I could get rid of a couple of things if I find the time.
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right?
OpenMCL and standalone for dev, CMUCL and mod_lisp for deployment.
Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida? Does anybody use it with AllegroCL or some other Lisp I haven't listed above? Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
Not really.
Thanks, Edi. _______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
SBCL Linux & OSX standalone for development I'd be very interested in Hunchentoot for SBCL.
Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> writes:
Hi!
I'm thinking about re-organizing/purifying the TBNL code-base. It looks pretty messy to me now and I think I could get rid of a couple of things if I find the time.
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right? Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida? Does anybody use it with AllegroCL or some other Lisp I haven't listed above? Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
I use TBNL with SBCL and CMUCL on FreeBSD and Debian with mod_lisp2. Would sure be interested in Huchentoot for SBCL and CMUCL. Thanks, Rajappa -- <rsi@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer. Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Edi Weitz wrote:
My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right?
Yes. SBCL/standalone + SBCL/mod_lisp2/apache2/Debian
Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
I'm not sure what the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution would be. Toby -- Pascal is for building pyramids—imposing, breathtaking structures built by armies pushing heavy blocks into place. Lisp is for building organisms . . . —Alan Perlis
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:07:02 +0200, Toby <tobia.conforto@linux.it> wrote:
Edi Weitz wrote:
Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
I'm not sure what the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution would be.
It's a pure Lisp solution (like AllegroServe), no Apache or any other external program involved. It's like the "stand-alone" version of TBNL, but with features that a "real" web server should have - like chunked encoding, persistent connections, or SSL. (That's the part Apache does for you if you use mod_lisp.) http://weitz.de/hunchentoot/ Cheers, Edi.
On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:49 AM, Edi Weitz wrote:
Hi!
I'm thinking about re-organizing/purifying the TBNL code-base. It looks pretty messy to me now and I think I could get rid of a couple of things if I find the time.
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL OpenMCL
LispWorks on OS X and linux, perhaps SBCL on the same platforms at some point.
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone.
ProxyPass/ProxyPassReverse behind Apache 1.something and 2.something, and standalone.
Is that right? Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida? Does anybody use it with AllegroCL or some other Lisp I haven't listed above? Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
If I ever get around to getting my own stuff to work on SBCL then Hunchentoot for SBCL would be nice. Thanks, Bob
Thanks, Edi. _______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
---- Bob Hutchison -- blogs at <http://www.recursive.ca/ hutch/> Recursive Design Inc. -- <http://www.recursive.ca/> Raconteur -- <http://www.raconteur.info/> xampl for Ruby -- <http://rubyforge.org/projects/xampl/>
Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> writes:
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right? Does
OpenMCL behind apache 1.3/mod_lisp for development (I love my iBook :) sbcl + apache 2.x/mod_lisp for productive instances.
interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
a plain lispy way - without apache - would be very interesting! Simply delivering one lisp-image - no need to juggle with apache (1.3 vs 2.X) and mod_lisp... Great! (additionally a replacement for postgres would make dreams come true - waiting for rucksack... :))
Thanks, Edi.
thanks for tbnl - which brought me to Common Lisp :) -- Otto Diesenbacher mailto:diesenbacher@gmail.com Salzburg, Austria
On 5 Sep 2006, Edi Weitz spake thusly:
Hi!
I'm thinking about re-organizing/purifying the TBNL code-base. It looks pretty messy to me now and I think I could get rid of a couple of things if I find the time.
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
LispWorks SBCL CMUCL
I use CMUCL
OpenMCL
and usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right? Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida? Does anybody use it with AllegroCL or some other Lisp I haven't listed above? Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
CMUCL+mod_lisp+TBNL on a GNU/Linux machine. Is the performance of huchentoot+TBNL better than mod_lisp+TBNL ? Anyway a CL webserver would be interesting. thanks, -- quasi Utopia Unlimited!
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:51:38 +0530, quasi <quasilists@gmail.com> wrote:
Is the performance of huchentoot+TBNL better than mod_lisp+TBNL ?
Do you have an application where the performance difference would matter? I haven't seen one yet. If you're serving hundreds of users per minute with a Lisp web application, you should probably add it to one of the "success stories" pages. I'm much more interested in correct behaviour and convenience - both mod_lisp and Hunchentoot have always been fast enough for me. Cheers, Edi.
Edi Weitz wrote:
Before I do that, I'd need some info about current usage patterns. My impression is that TBNL is used with these implementations
SBCL
I use SBCL rather exclusively.
usually behind mod_lisp or stand-alone. Is that right?
I usually test and deploy behind mod_lisp2 / apache2 - this works well (after updating kmrcl to play nicely with SBCL) though this introduces a rather opaque layer into the debugging process when things just don't quite work correctly.
Does anybody still use TBNL with Araneida?
Not me.
Would people be interested in something like Hunchentoot for non-LispWorks Lisps?
I would be very likely to use this as a solution to a number of projects where taking Apache out of the setup would greatly simplify things. After you released Hunchentoot, I took a hard look at the source and have been considering factoring out the non-portable code ever since. I'd be terribly happy if you beat me to it though ;) Another project on my TBNL agenda that I started part way down was seeing if I could remove some dependencies (primarily kmrcl) without adding a whole lot a code to TBNL. Do you happen to be sold on the wonders of the Darcs version control system? ;) If you're not strongly tied to whatever VCS you're currently using, a public darcs repository could be a real boon. Cheers, -- Travis
participants (16)
-
Bob Hutchison -
Edi Weitz -
Erick Ivaan Lopez Carreon -
Erik Enge -
Ignas Mikalajunas -
Mac Chan -
Otto Diesenbacher -
Phillip Jordan -
quasi -
Rajappa Iyer -
Robert Synnott -
Sergio Garcia -
Tiarnan O'Corrain -
Toby -
Travis Cross -
Xristos Kalkanis