Hi Norman! We've been using the vhost-map a lot in our systems too. I've put together (so far an unofficial) egg that turns spiffy's current-request and current-response into function arguments and return values respectively. Maybe that could be useful for some code-samples, if not useful as a dependency.
https://github.com/Adellica/reser K. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Norman Gray <nor...@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote: > > Peter, hello. > > On 8 Mar 2016, at 20:41, Peter Bex wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:48:00PM +0000, Norman Gray wrote: >> > > So you mean including handlers like: >>> >>> (define (vhost-handler cont) >>> (let ((uri (uri-path (request-uri (current-request))))) >>> (if (string=? (cadr uri) "wibble") ;; we want to handle URIs >>> like /wibble/... >>> (send-response status: 'ok >>> body: (format "<p>Good: request was ~S >>> (vhost)</p>" uri) >>> headers: '((content-type text/html))) >>> (cont)))) >>> (vhost-map `((".*" . ,vhost-handler))) >>> >> >> That's how it was intended, yes. I've added something similar to the >> wiki with a link to slightly extended (but somewhat outdated) example >> from a demonstration. >> > > The new section 'A simple dynamic web page example' is perfect, in > combination with the pointer to the spiffy+sxml example. > > I marginally adjusted the linked webserver.scm to use sxml-serializer > rather than the full-blown sxml transform egg (was that the 'outdated' you > meant). I've attached the result. > > OK: that's a (very) nice design -- I'll do that. >>> >>> But may I suggest that vhost-map is not, perhaps, the best name for >>> this structure, since the intended functionality is much more >>> general than mapping vhosts. As I mentioned, I guessed that might >>> be a route to the solution, but based on the name, on the fact it's >>> documented in a section called 'Virtual hosts', and since the >>> example in that section is about handling virtual hosts, I got the >>> impression that the author was firmly steering me away from more >>> open-ended cleverness. Caolan suggested that I'm not (thankfully) >>> alone in misinterpreting this. >>> >> >> Well, it is a mapping for which handler to use for which vhost. That >> is also the topmost place where dispatching happens for incoming >> requests, so it's the place where you'd add custom handlers. >> >> I could add some intermediate parameter like "request-handler", which >> then defaults to some procedure that handles the request like the >> current implementation does (try to serve a file), but it would be >> one more level of indirection which is basically just what "continue" >> does now. >> >> Would that be sensible? >> > > I don't think that would be necessary and would, as you say, be a further > level of indirection. Yesterday afternoon, I did put together a potential > patch for spiffy.scm which may have the same idea (attached for interest), > but the vhost-map (once one understands what it's intended for) seems to be > completely general. > > Perhaps dispatch-handler-map, or handler-map, or something like >>> that, would signal the intent more clearly, along with an example >>> such as the above. >>> >> >> Not sure that would be much clearer. Also, it would break compatibility. >> > > Indeed: it's not obvious what the best name is, though 'handle/host' > seemed to push the right buttons for me. > > One would of course export a (define vhost-map fancy-new-name) for > compatibility. > > Since the car of the alist is a host pattern, >>> then perhaps the word 'host' should be in the name, but in that case >>> perhaps handle/host might be suitable (and if anything's being >>> changed, then it might be nice to have a clear catch-all host >>> pattern, such as #t, or to permit the list elements to be a >>> continuation thunk as well as a string-thunk pair). Thus: >>> >>> (handle/host >>> `(,my-general-handler >>> ("foo\\.bar\\.com" . ,(lambda (continue) ...)) >>> (#t . ,my-catch-all-handler)) >>> >> >> I think that would only complicate things, and cause more confusion >> as to the format of this list. >> > > I agree. > > It's a wiki, feel free to improve the wording in places where it's >> unclear. >> > > There's nothing I can usefully add to the change you've made, but I'll > bear the suggestion in mind for what I expect to be lots of future > engagement with these docs. > > And thanks, Andy, for the pointer to uri-match (and for the mention of > Knodium, which I intend to investigate further). > > > All the best, > > Norman > > > -- > Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk > SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK > > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-users mailing list > Chicken-users@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > >
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
