Hi Henrik, > The only reason I'm opting for the cookie solution is that the current > session logic is using ports and there are not an unlimited amount of > ports, I don't like that, furthermore it seems overkill for what I > ... > So Alex, how does the url option compare to the cookie solution, is it > equally unpalatable?
I'm not sure. As always, it depends ;-) The current framework is intended for applications where a certain amount of users is reading and writing the database concurrently. In such a case, the limited amount of ports is never a problem, because the system would not be able to handle, say, 30000 users at the same time. If there were so many, we would need to distribute the app across several hosts anyway. If, on the other hand, the user interactions are just short single-shot requests, it is also not a problem, as no ports are allocated at all. So I never had (and also cannot imagine at the moment) a situation where one of these two approaches were not satisfying. It might be worth, though, to consider writing separate frameworks for other types of applications. I would not try to overload the current system to serve any conceivable situation. The purpose of picoLisp is to make it easy writing lightweight vertical solutions, instead of heavy all-purpose monsters. Cheers, - Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
