Re: [Vala] mod_vala (was Removal of Mono)

[Jeremy <chimpninja gmail com>]

Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Jeremy wrote:
> > > Maybe mod_mono (for apache) is an example of the sort of dependency I
> > > was thinking of:
> > > http://ibbie.xanga.com/686874553/item/
> >
> >   That would be my blog post. I do still think a "mod_vala" would be a
> > *great* idea. Unfortunately, I feel it best to suggest that focusing on
> > improving the documentation might be a better goal. Both flavors of
> > syntax are great; but anyone coming in, either knowing another language
> > or just new to programming, will be discouraged when they can't find the
> > answers. After all, it's really difficult to RTFM when there's no
> > (finished) FM.  I mean, imagine if you did "man sbrk",  and at "RETURN
> > VALUE" it just said "To be completed..." (;
>
> Hrm.  A "mod_vala" might be okay, but it would be necessarily 
> non-portable. Why not have a FastCGI library for GObject instead, and 
> then Vala (or C) can be used to create applications that use the 
> FastCGI protocol run run behind a Web server?
>
> The FastCGI library could be a bare, low-level thing that just 
> implemented the protocol, and have a layer that sat on top of it to 
> provide more reasonable interface to the proess and make it easy to 
> work with.  That would accomplish something along the lines of a 
> mod_vala, but it would not only work with Apache, but a fair lot of 
> other Web servers, as well.
>
>     --- Mike

   You know, I was actually thinking about that after I'd sent the 
e-mail. Either FastCGI or SCGI should work, and wouldn't be locked into 
a specific server. There'd be no issue of constantly re-running a binary 
(ala CGI) since it'd essentially hang out and wait for the server to 
call it - essentially, the application becomes a sort of data source. At 
least, that's how I understood it worked, please correct me if I'm wrong.

--
Jeremy