I've been considering packaging one of the existing open-source lisp
implementations so that it can work just like PHP works, but using
Common Lisp rather than php. Yes, I am familiar with mod_lisp and I
have looked at least briefly at the other lisp web server options on
cliki and various other resources. I'm interested in having a package
that installs just like PHP can be installed, the functionality will
probably be nearly identical to what mod_lisp, for example, provides.
I'll most likely start by trying to do this using CLISP. I'm just
writing to see if anyone has already attempted something like this, or
if people have strong opinions that it should not be done, or that it
should be approached in a certain way. I'm neither an Apache developer
nor a CLISP developer, but I do take programming seriously, both as a
profession and a hobby.
Thanks,
-Jason
·····@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu (Jason S. Cornez) writes:
> I've been considering packaging one of the existing open-source lisp
> implementations so that it can work just like PHP works, but using
> Common Lisp rather than php. Yes, I am familiar with mod_lisp and I
> have looked at least briefly at the other lisp web server options on
> cliki and various other resources. I'm interested in having a package
> that installs just like PHP can be installed, the functionality will
> probably be nearly identical to what mod_lisp, for example, provides.
>
> I'll most likely start by trying to do this using CLISP. I'm just
> writing to see if anyone has already attempted something like this, or
> if people have strong opinions that it should not be done, or that it
> should be approached in a certain way. I'm neither an Apache developer
> nor a CLISP developer, but I do take programming seriously, both as a
> profession and a hobby.
I'd recommend targeting apache 2, and not worry much about apache 1. I
know almost nothing about lisp and have never tried mod_lisp, but my
impression of it was that the lisp interpreter ran as a separate
process. I think it'd be really cool if you tried to embed the
interpreter into apache itself, just like mod_php, mod_perl and
(I think) mod_dtcl do.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Joe Schaefer
In article <··············@mumonkan.sunstarsys.com>, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ·····@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu (Jason S. Cornez) writes:
>
>> I've been considering packaging one of the existing open-source lisp
>> implementations so that it can work just like PHP works, but using
>> Common Lisp rather than php. Yes, I am familiar with mod_lisp and I
>> have looked at least briefly at the other lisp web server options on
>> cliki and various other resources. I'm interested in having a package
>> that installs just like PHP can be installed, the functionality will
>> probably be nearly identical to what mod_lisp, for example, provides.
>>
>> I'll most likely start by trying to do this using CLISP. I'm just
>> writing to see if anyone has already attempted something like this, or
>> if people have strong opinions that it should not be done, or that it
>> should be approached in a certain way. I'm neither an Apache developer
>> nor a CLISP developer, but I do take programming seriously, both as a
>> profession and a hobby.
>
> I'd recommend targeting apache 2, and not worry much about apache 1. I
> know almost nothing about lisp and have never tried mod_lisp, but my
> impression of it was that the lisp interpreter ran as a separate
> process. I think it'd be really cool if you tried to embed the
> interpreter into apache itself, just like mod_php, mod_perl and
> (I think) mod_dtcl do.
I agree about the apache2 bit. You might also want to take a
look at ecl(http://ecls.sf.net) for something that would apear
to be more in line with mod_php and the like. One thing to be
aware of is that not all mod_* are alike. mod_php just does
dynamic page generation, but mod_perl allows you to hook into
any part of the processing pipeline in apache. And mod_lisp is
a proxy system to an external process.
Good luck
marc
>
> Just my 2 cents.
> --
> Joe Schaefer
>
>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 05:52:55PM -0500, Jason S. Cornez wrote:
> I've been considering packaging one of the existing open-source lisp
> implementations so that it can work just like PHP works, but using
> Common Lisp rather than php. Yes, I am familiar with mod_lisp and I
> have looked at least briefly at the other lisp web server options on
> cliki and various other resources. I'm interested in having a package
> that installs just like PHP can be installed, the functionality will
> probably be nearly identical to what mod_lisp, for example, provides.
>
> I'll most likely start by trying to do this using CLISP. I'm just
> writing to see if anyone has already attempted something like this, or
> if people have strong opinions that it should not be done, or that it
> should be approached in a certain way. I'm neither an Apache developer
> nor a CLISP developer, but I do take programming seriously, both as a
> profession and a hobby.
>
I think it would be well worthwhile to take a closer look at what other
people are doing in this field, as well as establish a better idea of what
mod_lisp really does. See IMHO, Araneida, CL-HTTP, AllegroServe, BRL, etc.
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/index
If you want a personal opinion, I think the mod_php approach is bad.
Particularly for something like Common Lisp which flourishes in an
interactive environment. I enjoy being able to work with the application
on the fly when I use IMHO, rather constantly having to reload/rerun
scripts such as with PHP. Plus you can use whatever Lisp you want rather
than being stuck with whatever is in the Apache module.
Araneida and CL-HTTP are web-servers (though Araneida is usually behind a
proxy), and so are also constantly running.
If you're using Apache though, talking across a socket a la
IMHO/mod_lisp/Tomcat, etc, frees the CL implementation from the contraint
of having to work within Apache, as well as providing an additional way
to load-balance it.
If you want to do something useful in this area, there is a need for a
better Apache->Lisp interface than "mod_webapp" for IMHO. Writing a good
mod_lisp connector for IMHO would be one thing to do ;)
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
·······@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
> I think it would be well worthwhile to take a closer look at what other
> people are doing in this field, as well as establish a better idea of what
> mod_lisp really does. See IMHO, Araneida, CL-HTTP, AllegroServe, BRL, etc.
> http://ww.telent.net/cliki/index
>
> If you want a personal opinion, I think the mod_php approach is bad.
> Particularly for something like Common Lisp which flourishes in an
> interactive environment. I enjoy being able to work with the application
> on the fly when I use IMHO, rather constantly having to reload/rerun
> scripts such as with PHP. Plus you can use whatever Lisp you want rather
> than being stuck with whatever is in the Apache module.
>
> Araneida and CL-HTTP are web-servers (though Araneida is usually behind a
> proxy), and so are also constantly running.
>
> If you're using Apache though, talking across a socket a la
> IMHO/mod_lisp/Tomcat, etc, frees the CL implementation from the contraint
> of having to work within Apache, as well as providing an additional way
> to load-balance it.
>
> If you want to do something useful in this area, there is a need for a
> better Apache->Lisp interface than "mod_webapp" for IMHO. Writing a good
> mod_lisp connector for IMHO would be one thing to do ;)
>
Thanks for your suggestions and opinion. That is definitely the type of
feedback I am interested in. While I agree that being able to choose
your own Lisp implementation is generally a plus, here is why I am
thinking the at mod_php approach might have some merit. PHP was
invented only a few years ago, today there are tons of packages built
using PHP. I don't think this is due to the inherent strength of the
language :) A big thing that makes it easy is that one can develop a
PHP app and then share it (or a library for it) with others who can
easily run the code themselves by simply installing PHP into their
existing Apache server.
The goal here is not so much to make Lisp "popular", but to remove a
barrier to deploying a Lisp-based web application. Making the Lisp be
"just another apache module" could help greatly with this. In addition,
it would provide a common platform and perhaps eventually set of Lisp
web packages that would be consistently available as a web application
development and deployment environment. Having the ANSI CL standard
already helps a lot here, but a defacto Lisp-based web application
platform definitely does not exist.
I'll take some time to investigate IMHO. Thanks for the suggestion.
-Jason
"Jason S. Cornez" <·····@au-bon-pain.lcs.mit.edu> wrote
> The goal here is not so much to make Lisp "popular", but to remove a
> barrier to deploying a Lisp-based web application. Making the Lisp be
> "just another apache module" could help greatly with this. In addition,
It is precisely the goal of mod_lisp, but of course there are generally
several ways to try to achieve a same goal (especially in Lisp) ;-)
Marc
<·······@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message ·························@emu...
> If you want a personal opinion, I think the mod_php approach is bad.
> Particularly for something like Common Lisp which flourishes in an
> interactive environment. I enjoy being able to work with the application
> on the fly when I use IMHO, rather constantly having to reload/rerun
> scripts such as with PHP. Plus you can use whatever Lisp you want rather
> than being stuck with whatever is in the Apache module.
I also think the PHP approach is bad for web applications. If you only want
to generate isolated html pages then it could be enough, but if you want to
write real applications you will need to do at least state and session
management. And keeping the application in a separate process is the best
way to do this.
The ability of working in the REPL on a running system is really impressive
for non Lisp programmers.
> If you're using Apache though, talking across a socket a la
> IMHO/mod_lisp/Tomcat, etc, frees the CL implementation from the contraint
> of having to work within Apache, as well as providing an additional way
> to load-balance it.
At least you can keep the application on separate servers (can be better for
security also)
One day I will find the time to add load balancing features for mod_lisp...
...
Marc