Hi José, > If I can make it to participate as a student I'd like to make a more > generic and portable web framework (in the sense of being able to deploy > it in more kinds of servers than a dedicated/VPS with permission to run > a server on a public port) Right now I have some work done in that
This sounds useful. I don't know about the types of restrictions which might be imposed by such servers. > If you are allowed to run persistent processes in your server you > would have at least these options for connecting the web application > to the web (or a caching reverse proxy). > > +---+ +--------+ +------+----------+------------------------+ > | | <->| Web |<->| SCGI <> <> | > | I | | Server | +------+ <> | > | n | +--------+ | <> | > | t | ^ +-----+ +-----+ Common <> Web | > | e | '->| CGI |<->| PGI <> <> | > | r | +-----+ +-----+ Module <> Application | > | n | | <> | > | e | +------+ <> | > | t |<--------------->| HTTP <> <> | > | | +-----------------+------------------------+ > +---+ > > The "PGI" (Picolisp Gateway Interface) backend is just thin glue to > allow a very simple CGI script to be able to "tunnel" a request to the OK > - A kludgy "compatibility layer" to be able to reuse part of xhtml.l I wouldn't bother much about reusing "xhtml.l". It is less than 600 code lines, so writing a specialized version without the unnecessary stuff is cleaner. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
