no, the message was not meant to be off-list, that was just me
pressing the wrong button :-)
Regarding happstack, I do not believe that there is a contrast with
your effort, the core of happstack is in its persistency mechanism not
in its http interface so I think it would be great to engage the
happstack community in this effort.
We have so many half-baked and dispersed attempts in the web area that
any attempt at consolidation can only be welcome.
Personally I have been using happstack for a few years though now I am
running it behind a nginx server because of its known deficiencies (no
I will be away for a few days and unable to answer my email
2010/1/13 Michael Snoyman <[email protected]>:
> Not sure if you replied off-list on purpose or not, but I'll continue this
> off list for the moment. I think we have a bit of a problem in the Haskell
> web community: you've got the Happstack camp and then the rest of us. "The
> rest of us" need to rally around *something*, and it seems that Hack didn't
> get people's attention for some reason.
> I'm happy to write WAI, but I'd like more to make it a community effort. You
> have any thoughts on this? My first stab at the idea is to create a github
> repo, write the code, and then try to get people to comment on it. However,
> I also want to give it at least a day so I can get people's feedback on this
> What have you been using for Haskell web development until now? It seems
> like each non-Happstack person has a totally different approach, and I'd
> like to try and consolidate this together somehow.
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pasqualino "Titto" Assini
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A unified web app interface would be a God-sent, please please go ahead.
>> Regarding point 1, I find hack interface nice and clean and would like
>> to see something similar.
>> Regarding point 2 I vote for correctness/performance vs convenience.
>> 2010/1/13 Michael Snoyman <[email protected]>:
>> > Hi,
>> > I recently read (again) the wiki page on a web application interface
>> > for
>> > Haskell. It seems like this basically works out to Hack, but using an
>> > enumerator instead of lazy bytestring in the response type. Is anyone
>> > working on implementing this? If not, I would like to create the
>> > package,
>> > though I wouldn't mind some community input on some design decisions:
>> > * Hack has been fairly well-tested in the past year and I think it
>> > provides
>> > the features that people want. Therefore, I would want to model the
>> > Environment variable for WAI from Hack. I *could* just import Hack in
>> > WAI
>> > and use the exact same Environment data type. Thoughts?
>> > * If using a different data type for Environment, should I replace the
>> > String parts with ByteStrings? On the one hand, ByteStrings are the
>> > "correct" data type since the HTTP protocol does not specify a character
>> > encoding; on the other hand, Strings are easier to deal with.
>> > * It's simple to write a function to convert between a lazy bytestring
>> > and
>> > an enumerator, meaning it would be very easy to write conversion
>> > functions
>> > between Hack and WAI applications. This would make it simpler for people
>> > to
>> > use either backend.
>> > If someone else is already working on WAI, please let me know, I don't
>> > want
>> > to have duplicate implementations. The idea here is to consolidate, not
>> > split the community. I have a few Hack handlers (simpleserver, cgi,
>> > fastcgi)
>> > that I would happily convert to WAI handlers as well.
>> > Michael
>> >  http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/WebApplicationInterface
>> >  http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/hack
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>> Pasqualino "Titto" Assini, Ph.D.
Pasqualino "Titto" Assini, Ph.D.
Haskell-Cafe mailing list