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.

- Alex
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to