2c about the coupling thing.
tcl is certainly unpopular - (put's on flame retardent suit) - it doesn't suit structured programming well like, say, ruby and python do, and it takes more brainpower to keep all those uplevels working. Having said that, PHP is also unsuited to structured programming and MySQL is just unsuitable ;) The realy beauty of the opensource web development stack then is that all layers are easily interchangeable. You can use Apache + MySQL with Perl, Python or Ruby. You can use Perl/Python/Ruby with Postgresql or Oracle and serve the application on Apache or lighttpd, etc. I think the tcl coupling - or rather the inability to couple with other languages easily - is a big problem. Ruby on Rails has shown that people aren't wedded to Apache. Many RoR sites are hosted using alternative servers (like lighttpd). One of the core issues behind the lack of coupling with other languages is in fact that AOLServer is still ahead of the game with threading. I've tried pretty hard at making perl and ruby ns modules - only to be stumped by issues with the weakness of their threading models. One possibility here (and VERY buzzword compliant) is JRuby - where the threading model is that of the JVM. If it turns out to be possible to nicely host, say, JRuby applications on aolserver and give the Ruby code access to aolserver features I think we would find ourselves with a very popular server on our hands. Mark. -- Mark Aufflick contact info at http://mark.aufflick.com/about/contact On 8/4/07, Jim Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy folks, > > Seems like we're having another flare-up of frustration on the list... > > I left AOL about a year ago and haven't had much time to contribute > since. I probably wrote (re-wrote and wrote again) 90% of the code > and had several teams hacking Tcl code for dozens of AOL web sites > over the past 12 years. I think it's a fair criticism we often > talked to ourselves within AOL instead of soliciting feedback > outside. Why? I don't know -- maybe because we thought the scale of > our operations made us different, more likely we were just lazy or > distracted -- I think most of my time at AOL took the form of "please > enter your meeting id number followed by the pound sign...". > > Anyway, I've spent some time with LAMPP recently -- quite clever all > that PHP/MySql stuff. To compare, AOLserver > > -- Still has a scalable architecture and good underlying code quality > -- Is tightly woven with Tcl which appears less and less popular each > year (I could be wrong) > -- Is lacking many extensions or has cruddy alternatives (e.g., > ns_http instead of curl) > -- Has horrible, incomplete, and often misleading documentation > -- Isn't so easy to install and configure > > while lampp: > > -- Has great documentation with threaded discussions > -- Relies on PHP which, fair or unfair, appears quite popular > -- Has possibly too many overlapping extensions > -- Is hard to install and configure unless you're using that xampp stuff > > > I'm wondering -- does it make sense to just try to close the gap with > LAMPP as a model, driving to the "batteries-included" distro Dossy's > been talking about for years? That seems to me like a project tons > of folks could contribute too -- from docs to extensions to > installers, etc. > > > -Jim > > > -- > AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ > > To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> with the > body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: > field of your email blank. > -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.