Thanks! I agree. I think they both have there uses as things stand right now.
Maybe Incise could even use Stasis as a lib to build its more elaborate > features on top of? I was thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, I think there are a few blockers right now (serving is done very differently, string content is not required). I'll have to think more about how the stasis way of serving and exporting compares to incise's. On Thursday, January 23, 2014 6:07:32 PM UTC-8, Magnar Sveen wrote: > > Very minimalist. I appreciate that. >> > > Thank you :-) And let me say that out of the five frameworks, I think > Incise is the most exciting - with its focus on extensibility. > > This makes sharing implementations easier. The stasis way to do this is >> for everyone to write it and integrate themselves. Often the later is more >> fun and offers a bit more control, but the former is easier. >> > > Agreed. Now, I prefer control and fun over ease - but that might be a bad > choice in many situations. > > My feeling is that both Stasis and Incise have their place, and can live > happily alongside each other. Maybe Incise could even use Stasis as a lib > to build its more elaborate features on top of? > > - Magnar > > -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
