jeff at inf.ed.ac.uk
Fri Apr 22 11:33:21 CDT 2005
Quoting Marco Baringer <mb at bese.it>:
> jeff at inf.ed.ac.uk writes:
> > I'm disappointed that so many Lisp tools seem to require
> > Apache + mod_something.
> which lisp tool requires apache + mod_lisp? its not tbnl, not ucw, not
> kpax, nor bknr. the only one i can think of was imho (but i don't know
> of anybody still using that).
> > > With some of these systems, I'm left wondering what exactly they do,
> > if they've turned so much over to Apache.
> they leave ssl handling, gzip response compression, access control,
> and caching to apache and do everything else (which is a lot).
The last time this sort of thing came up, a few months(?) back,
I looked at the web pages for a bunch of Lisp tools, and most
of them seemed to require Apache. I don't remember whether they
specifically wanted mod_lisp or mod_something_else, which is why
I said "mod_something" above.
I'm not sure I understand your point. You seem to be saying
that tools *do* use Apache for various things and that a bunch
of tools that you listed *don't* need Apache, or else that they
don't need specifically mod_lisp.
I'm not saying there's a contradiction; I'm just not sure what
it adds up to.
> doing it right is longer than it looks. why should i invest time and
> effort to rebuild something which already exists?
> Apache already does that why should I rewrite, retest, redebug, and
> maintain my own code?
Of course, you shouldn't, if you don't want to; but I might not
want to use your system if I have to use it with Apache.
Also, your "why should I?" attitude isn't the only one that
it's reasonable to have. Some Lisp programmers might think
that when something already exists, that's a challenge to do
it better in Lisp.
More information about the lispweb