Re: What would _you_ like in a Lua CMS?

[Petite Abeille <petite_abeille@...>]

On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Cosmin Apreutesei wrote:

> If the primary reason to abstract http away would be simplification,
> you'd have this put on a library instead. A library you can use if you
> like when you like, and you can also _not_ use when you need not to
> (you could even use two libraries on the same http stream). You'd have
> both abstraction and control at the same time.

Right on, this is how Nanoki is setup. Nanoki itself is an application  
[1], which happen to use an HTTP library [2] that provides an HTTP  
server [3].

> I think this analogy is accurate if you think about what O/R mappers
> have done to poor people around the world :)

Finally, someone got the analogy... great minds and all that... :)

> Ironically, dumbing down your use of SQL to the common set of
> functionality available on all compliant servers goes against many
> criteria for choosing a server in the first place :) but I diverge.

Ah, yes, the curse of the lowest common denominator :D


[1] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/Nanoki.lua
[2] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/HTTP.lua
[3] http://dev.alt.textdrive.com/browser/HTTP/TCPServer.lua