[hunchentoot-devel] mod_lisp anyone?

[Arjan Wekking]

On 9 apr 2008, at 12:07, Edi Weitz wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:57:12 +0200, Arjan Wekking  
> <arjan at streamtech.nl> wrote:
>
>> We (Streamtech) are using it in some relatively large web
>> applications
>
> Like in Arthur's case, I'd be interested in why you decided to go with
> mod_lisp.  Just curious... :)

Well, it's partially historical (we moved some parts of the  
application from UCW to hunchentoot, keeping the mod_lisp set up as it  
was) and to a certain degree because of performance (we've been doing  
an average 6 requests per second 24/7 on the main part of our  
application).

Keeping Apache in front of Lisp has turned out to be a very pleasant  
setup for both performance (we serve quite some static files as well)  
and run-time management (to configure HTTP processing details, dealing  
with name bases virtual hosting and moving apps around without any  
downtime). We know this works just as well when running behind  
mod_proxy (as Zach mentioned) so we're not really depending on  
mod_lisp for that.

So, to sum things up; we know mod_lisp is a very thin layer compared  
to just proxying HTTP requests and we've been thinking of taking it  
out on some occasions (the behaviour it displays when restarting a  
Lisp without restarting Apache has been an issue now and then) so if  
mod_lisp support was dropped we would eventually change to a mod_proxy  
set up when we want to upgrade Hunchentoot, I guess.


-Arjan Wekking, Streamtech bv

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3405 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/tbnl-devel/attachments/20080409/29626ffd/attachment.bin>