On top of all of that, Pedestal is a non-starter for me due to the specific
definition of Windows being a non-supported platform.
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 10:48:58 AM UTC-6, Sean Corfield wrote:
>
> On May 6, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Sean Corfield > wrote:
>
> And that’s why I thought that Pedestal
On May 6, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Sean Corfield wrote:
> And that’s why I thought that Pedestal looked very complex and hard to use.
> Even the Hello World example is couched in terms that make it look overly
> complex.
I Googled to see if there was a better page explaining Pedestal and didn’t find
On May 6, 2015, at 4:26 AM, Paul deGrandis wrote:
> I would argue that Pedestal is perhaps objectively simpler than Ring. I
> would also add it's more performant, more flexible, and more secure (by
> default).
As Surgo said in the other thread:
"Projects like Pedestal do themselves a tremendo
Thanks Avi! I’ll bookmark that and see whether I can either borrow from it or
contribute to it in the context of FW/1 :)
Sean
> On May 6, 2015, at 3:46 AM, Avi Avicenna wrote:
>
> There is one,
>
> Wakeful (https://github.com/ninjudd/wakeful) routing library fits your
> criteria.
>
> Here
This is for Sean specifically, but hopefully this will clear some things up
for other people
I would argue that Pedestal is perhaps objectively simpler than Ring. I
would also add it's more performant, more flexible, and more secure (by
default).
In Pedestal, everything is an interceptor - a
There is one,
Wakeful (https://github.com/ninjudd/wakeful) routing library fits your
criteria.
Here I copy the sample from its README
(use 'flatland.wakeful.core)
(def handler (wakeful "awesome.api"))
Now http calls dispatch to methods calls in namespaces under awesome.api:
GET /photo-123/
Routes-as-data routing libraries, such Bidi or (I know... complicated...)
Pedestal, should be able to (fairly) easily create abstractions that permit
convention-based routing.
It's not exactly what you're talking about, but I made a little toy example
of how you could mimic Rails resource routi
On May 5, 2015, at 6:30 PM, Herwig Hochleitner wrote:
> Cool Idea! Convention based routing is a great way to get started quickly and
> I think that it actually might make a lot of people, asking for clojure
> frameworks, happy.
> I'm not aware of any clojure lib that does that, but I'd like to
Cool Idea! Convention based routing is a great way to get started quickly
and I think that it actually might make a lot of people, asking for clojure
frameworks, happy.
I'm not aware of any clojure lib that does that, but I'd like to speculate
a bit on what it might mean:
As it happens, when I hea
Perhaps I should rephrase that as a request for simple, convention-based
routing that works with Ring directly? :)
I’m sure Pedestal’s great, but just looking at the repo and documentation
doesn’t exactly scream "simple"… I just don’t want to have to read that much
documentation to get a simple
Hi Sean,
Pedestal's router is just an interceptor in the chain. You could easily
write an interceptor that looks at the request and sees if it can resolve a
var by that name. You could even stack multiple routers - first the var/fn
lookup and failing that, a more explicit router.
Cheers,
Pau
In the web framework thread, a number of routing libraries were mentioned but
they all seemed to be based on explicit routing.
I’m used to working in web environments where routing is usually implicit so
that a request for:
/foo/bar
gets automatically routed to a method bar() in a hand
12 matches
Mail list logo
