[hunchentoot-devel] mod_lisp anyone?

[Hans Hübner]

Hi Ralf,

can you come up with concrete examples of what could be configured
with Hunchentoot and mod_lisp that would not be possible in a
mod_proxy setup?  I am relatively easy to convince that keeping
mod_lisp support is a good idea, but I'd still want to know what
exactly these advantages are.

With respect to other comments:

I do like the idea of using a streams based approach to mod_lisp and
raw http support, as Arjan has suggested.  I am not sure if I will
make this change soon, though, and if I could start by removing
mod_lisp support, it would make life easier for me as well.

It would be helpful if Robert and/or Andrea could write down how
session support needs to be enhanced.

Thanks,
Hans

Thanks,
Hans

2008/4/9, Edi Weitz <edi at agharta.de>:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:24:30 +0200, Ralf Mattes <rm at 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 at common-lisp.net
>  http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
>