I really dislike such global imperative state, but it should be easy to write response/hooks or something to provide this as a library. The default response will be a streaming output though, so it will be easy to make everything efficient in extensions.
Jay On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Nevo <sakur.dea...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 28 November 2010 00:31, YC <yinso.c...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with Neil that xexpr or sxml are very nice representations of html >> as well. Given their inherent advantage I think an extensible response >> mechanism might work better: >> >> create hooks to handle different response types >> let the different package to install the necessary hooks >> >> For example - the hook might be called make-response-hook, and in xml >> package (maybe xml/web-server.ss) can install the hook. >> >> Such a hook will allow others to make their own extension as well to >> manage their own custom response types. > > > Agree! that way the Racket web server seems be able to be widely > proliferated, and I can handily make a call to that extension instead of > converting back and forth . For example, right now, I have to first convert > a list to json object, then to byte string before sending out. > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
