I agree :) but before to start vimming with test.c (all my best projects are named "test.c" ;) ) I must learn the OpenSocial Container specs. For example, it would be nice to try to code a C GadgetServer version, and then bind it to an apache module. but there are many things I still don't know.. as I said.. I'm a newbie here :)
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As with all good code, you start by writing it :) > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:02 AM, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I write often apache modules for my company. >> I too prefer to code in pure C and then bind through native extensions >> / apache modules. >> I'm not too much skilled but I get nice results sometimes. >> If I could help.. it would be great :) >> where can I start from? >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
