J�rgen Fr�jk Kj�rsgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * File upload. This is probably the most important thing.
This is possible, I think, in the near future. But will require a
decent bit of hacking and lots of testing.
> * A way to run several sites on the same Apache server, where each
> site may have its own global code. Could be solved with an
> interpreter per virtual server.
This may take a bit more thinking. It sounds like the hacking may not
be too hard, though (I hope I don't eat have to eat my words:-)
> * A possibility to use safe interpreters. The safe interpreter would
> be set up in the child_init script and .ttml files would be
> processed by it.
I've started mulling this over.
What are the goals for using a safe interpreter? There are a couple
of different things people could want out of it, depending on how they
are using mod_dtcl, and I'd like to know what is of most interest.
> > Would people like to see donated code for various things? (web
> > mail, tables, whatnot)?
> Of cause :-)
Priority-wise, how do people see it as compared to other stuff?
> > Other thoughts/ideas/considerations?
> Right now mod_dtcl is a good choise for relatively simple things,
> where only little code is needed, and for things where all or by far
> most code has to be custom developed anyway. Tcl is the most
> suitable language if the application primarily works with text as
> code and textual data is so easy to mix in Tcl. But for complex data
> structures, other languages (Python, Java, even php) are more
> powerful and perform better.
> > What do you guys think could help mod_dtcl (and Tcl/Apache) from
> > an image point of view?
> We need to define exactly where Tcl is superiour to other languages
> and "sell" it for those purposes.
The main 'target' I see is PHP. Something like Zope is just a
different beast, but the same people who use PHP are the same people
who might be interested in something like mod_dtcl, IMO.
> The major problem in the Tcl world today is that there are so many
> incompatible ways of doing everything. OO: [incr tcl], Stooop,
> Tcl++, ObjTcl; web: mod_dtcl, AOL Server, WebShell, tclHttpd,
> NeoWebScript, you name it. I could go on. This is a situation that
> really gives Tcl a bad image. If Tcl is to survive, standardization
> is a key area. Imagine if the same code, building on an extensive
> set of standard components, could be used in mod_dtcl, AOL Server
> and tclHttpd! One would have a choise of using Apache (mod_dtcl), a
> stand-alone webserver (AOL Server) and a simple Tcl-only webserver
> (tclHttpd) without having to rewrite any code to change server!
I've been doing a bit of work on this:
http://michael.cleverly.com/aolserver/nstcl
which seems like a reasonable API, both to provide a unified database
API, as well as providing a variety of util functions.
Thanks,
--
David N. Welton
http://www.prosa.it http://www.prosa.it/developers/davidw/
tel +39.049.8043411 fax +39.049.8043412 cel +39.348.2879508
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
