YC wrote at 12/04/2010 04:19 AM:
After reading through the README, my vote is for a new "web-server2"
collection and keep web-server frozen as is except to fix bugs.
I'm still wondering how many people are actually dependent on Web Server
right now. I think that this number might grow exponentially, but might
be only a handful of people right now.
FWIW, my priorities regarding Web Server backward-compatibility, most
important to least important:
(1) Keep moving Web Server development forward.
(2) Keep/make *new* Web Server development a good experience, including
giving good demo. ("web-server" is a little preferred to "web-server2".)
(3) Have an idea for how to do backward-compatibility in the future.
Maybe this involves PLaneT-like specs of which version of the API is
used (which, incidentally, would be useful for "#lang racket/base" as well).
(4) Handle migration somehow for people currently using Web Server.
This should not require major changes, but might require them to change
their source to point to a compatibility library/language. The others
are higher priority.
Again, most of my Web work is on architectures predating the Racket Web
Server, and I've only done a couple small apps using Web Server
(research data-browsing/labeling apps), so I'm mostly unaffected.
--
http://www.neilvandyke.org/
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
