Re: [LuaCheia] Let it begin.

["Martin Spernau" <martin@...>]

Maybe I'm a naive Windows user here, but I really prefer single file
'put-where-it-suits-you-and-doubleclick-the-exe' kind of apps. Thats why I'd
prefer Delphi over VisualBasic and am not in the least exited about dotNOT
(.NET)

I would very much like a solution that makes both solutions possible. There
are 'single-file' distributions for Python and Perl (PerlEx), or packaging
all needed files with UPX etc.
But for Python & Perl & co. the sheer size of the resulting package make
this a unreasonable track.

I think the three-level approach Björn suggested might be a solution there.

-Martin
----- Original Message -----
From: <RLake@oxfam.org.uk>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <lua-l@tecgraf.puc-rio.br>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [LuaCheia] Let it begin.


>
> Martin Spernau escribió:
>
> > I agree. But couldn't that also be done for Lua4? Returning the module
> > functions in a table , that is?
>
> Yes, but it is not as convenient. You have to put the table somewhere;
> Lua 4 upvalues are a bit of a pain because you end up having to repeat
> them into every function definition (although I did get used to that)
> so you end up putting it into a global, but then you get name collisions.
>
> The nice thing about lexical bindings is that names can be lexically
> bound to a file, so there are no cross-file collisions. Under those
> circumstances, globals are much less important.
>
> > <snip of several good suggestions>
>
> > Well, my comment would be: security etc. is important... But im
concerned
> if
> > this might not go 'overboard' slightly.
> > My personal wish for Lua (and also LuaCheia) would be to have maximum
> > flexibility and modularity. And that also means that I do not need an
> admin
> > to install stuff for me. The ideal Lua distribution for me consists of
> one
> > or only a few files I can put where they are suitable to me, and run
> them.
>
> I agree. The default installation should probably put the files it needs
in
> your home directory or equivalent. I'm very nervous about searching for
> binary DLLs/SOs in "all the usual places." However, the solution I
outlined
> (I think) would make it easy to generate a reasonably usable and
reasonably
> secure default install, whilst permitting a web-administrator or other
such
> beast to create a safe system-wide install.
>
> > That's the exact goal why Python, Perl, PHP, Ruby don't cut it for me,
> ease
> > of distribution.
> > Ideally _nothing_ needs to be installed to run a LuaCheia app.
>
> That would be the implementation of the old "Read Programmer's Mind"
> instruction, no? :)
>
> > And then, if you look at CGILua, that implement just what you are
> proposing
> > re security. A core that get's run by root (the server), then sets up an
> > restricted env and runs custom code as user.
>
> Yes. The issue is how to set up the restricted environment. I think that
> needs to be thought through in advance. The goal is to make it easy to
> create an environment that is restricted enough without being too
> restricted.
> For example, a restricted environment which could not use the module
system
> at all would be too restricted.
>
>
>