I was a big proponent of doing a pure C implementation originally -- it would be trivial to convert it to a php extension, apache module, python library, etc.
I actually wrote some code to start the task way back around the time 0.5 was coming out (probably before you even proposed shindig :)). On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Brian McCallister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mod_shindig would be a blast to write, actually. No idea *when* -- but > would > be fun. Apache makes C fun again -- you get to punt on all(1) the memory > management! > > -Brian > > 1) Where "all" means the kind of punting you get to do in most GC'd > languages, not forget altogether. > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Eiji Kitamura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > It's very interesting. > > Gonna be really great if there's OpenSocial apache module > > mod_opensocial.so. > > Hope there'll be someone who's crazy enough to implement it :) > > > > 2008/6/20 Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > sooo great! > > > but I have to insist... > > > > > > LoadModule osc_module modules/mod_opensocial.so > > > > > > try to be faster ;) > > > > > > > > > (yes... I'm a *bit* exhagerated....) > > > > > > > > > good night to all! > > > (at least, here is time to sleep!) > > > > > > leo > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Ropu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> give PHP a month and will see if java is needed for *very-large-scale* > > sites > > >> ;) ;) > > >> > > >> ropu > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> thanks for the replies. > > >>> for now I'll play with the "easy" php version... hoping to get so big > > >>> so fast to need the very-large-scale java version :) > > >>> regarding to the "pick the one that suits you best" question, some > > >>> sort of "mod_opensocial" apache module would be great (..it would be > > >>> fun to code..) > > >>> > > >>> thanks > > >>> leo > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> >> Hi all, > > >>> >> as far as I'm reading, > > >>> >> it seems the java version is "better" from a production-ready > > >>> perspective. > > >>> >> am I wrong? > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > Yes, you're wrong :). What's better is really a matter of what your > > >>> current > > >>> > architecture looks like. If you're already a PHP (or anything > > CGI-like) > > >>> > based setup, the PHP solution is probably better. If you're using > > Java, > > >>> go > > >>> > with the Java version. There are some different performance > > >>> characteristics > > >>> > of each, but those are language differences more than anything > else. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> >> is it only due to the Caja availabilty? > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > Caja is really a non-starter at this point. Nobody's using it > because > > it > > >>> > isn't ready yet; when it is ready, it'll definitely be an advantage > > of a > > >>> > java-based deployment, but PHP implementations can always leverage > > caja > > >>> by > > >>> > using a web service of some sort. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> >> are there other considerations? (i.e. scalability?) > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > Sure, but these are the same considerations for any "app server" > vs. > > >>> "cgi" > > >>> > setup. The java implementation can handle more simultaneous > requests > > than > > >>> > the PHP setup running under apache (due to memory limits), but it > > also > > >>> has a > > >>> > much higher baseline memory overhead (due to the JVM). Deploying > the > > PHP > > >>> > setup is a lot easier than deploying the java implementation, but > you > > >>> have > > >>> > more options on how you can deploy the java build due to the wide > > variety > > >>> of > > >>> > servlet containers out there. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> what about other implementations? > > >>> >> a full-compliant RoR flavour would be great. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Thanks to all > > >>> >> leonardo > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> .-. --- .--. ..- > > >> R o p u > > >> > > > > > >
