Re: [Chicken-users] A call to arms

[Andrew Gwozdziewycz]

On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:55 PM, Mor Phir wrote:

I want it to be the Django for schemers only that I am using chicken.

I want this to scale easily. Deploy more servers -> load balancing.
I only want to deploy the functionality that I need for a given site (the gentoo of webapps)

I want less grey hairs with regard to improper string constructs. Lack of boundry checking. Such shield developers and administrators
from committing to evil things as mentioned above.

I want to make it as simple as possible. The unix of webapps.

I want to use git as a replacement to the db backend (tracking the xml).

I was with you until this. I want a storage backend that just works, be it stored in XML, metakit, Sqlite, MySQL, Postgres, Berkeley DB. But

the kicker is, I want the same interface to work regardless of the storage engine.

One might define a "user" storage unit as:

(define-storage user

  (columns

   (id integer)

   (username (string 50))

   (password (string 50))))

which generates a `define-record` like set of methods (e.g. make-user, set-user-id!, set-user-username!, user-username, etc..) It would also

add (user-save storage), and (user-find storage args), and other appropriate things.

A while ago, I started on something like this, but didn't get all that far (just a macro to generate some of the procedures, and enforce the 

"type" constraints). I believe that data access is the thing holding us back. There are already flexible ways to define resources in the Chicken

eggs. There are already ways to connect Chicken to fastcgi and others. Web-unity makes it possible to connect to a bunch of different

things by changing only a little bit of code. 

We should not abandon the work that's already done in this area. We should instead, identify the pieces that aren't there at all, and collaborate

on unifying everything else that is into one library like Django, or Rails, or whatever else exists.

Just my 2 cents.

Andrew

--

http://www.apgwoz.com