Re: [Chicken-users] Standard APIs for databases, Web-apps

[Graham Fawcett]

I'm replying off-list for now, Reed, since my SCGI code may not be of
general interest.

On 2/10/06, Reed Sheridan <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I'm currently working on an SCGI adapter for Chicken; I'd like the
> > "inside" of this adapter to speak a WSGI-like protocol.
>
> I was planning to start on an SCGI adapter myself.  How is that going?  We
> don't need two of them.

Well, it's working. ;-) I've got an SCGI adapter that talks a
WSGI-like protocol on the inside. I've attached my code. I'm still a
rather new Schemer, so hopefully the code isn't too opaque. Really
there's not much to implementing SCGI; my (parse-scgi-request-environ)
function does most of the negotation.

>  Ideally, I'd
> > like to help rework Spiffy's internals, so that it could speak the
> > common protocol, and decouple it from http-server at its dedicated
> > back-end. I'd be happy to discuss implementation details with anyone
> > who's interested.
>
> Why would you want to use this with Spiffy?  This protocol would be usable
> with faster and more mature servers like Apache and lighttpd without any
> extra work.  Spiffy still has the advantage that you have greater control
> over it, but if you're using the protocol, aren't you giving that up anyway?

Really, I just didn't want to fracture an already-small community. If
there were existing Spiffy users, I'd rather have given them a new
tool than introduced them to a new framework altogether. But that's a
political decision, not a pragmatic one; I don't use Spiffy myself,
and would be just as happy with an alternate framework that was
multi-protocol friendly.

If you can glean anything from my SCGI code, feel free to rewrite or
incorporate it as you wish. I'd love to see your other adapters; do
you have a repository online?

Graham

scgi.scm
Description: Binary data