rack/wsgi/ring for smalltalk

> Is there a smalltalk equivalent for rack/wsgi/ring etc out there?
>
> I have an idea I'm going to play with that would be best served by
> building on something like rack.
> If there isn't one already, I'll implement one first and then move on
> to the idea that builds on it.
> If there is one, I'd rather see if it meets my needs and use it.
>
> Any pointers to anything appreciated.
>
> For  anyone not familiar with rack et al:
>
> They are basically' middleware' layers providing a standard interface
> between webservers and applications.
> Middleware is a little deceptive... a better description might be that
> it is an interface that allows you to
> hook into between a webserver and other end points by either hooking
> up an application or middleware
> ( authentication, file serving ) that can be composed together as part
> of a specific application.
>
> http://rack.rubyforge.org/
> https://github.com/mmcgrana/ring
> http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/

>
> On 27 Mar 2011, at 19:13, Sean Allen wrote:
>
>> Is there a smalltalk equivalent for rack/wsgi/ring etc out there?
>>
>> I have an idea I'm going to play with that would be best served by
>> building on something like rack.
>> If there isn't one already, I'll implement one first and then move on
>> to the idea that builds on it.
>> If there is one, I'd rather see if it meets my needs and use it.
>>
>> Any pointers to anything appreciated.
>>
>> For  anyone not familiar with rack et al:
>>
>> They are basically' middleware' layers providing a standard interface
>> between webservers and applications.
>> Middleware is a little deceptive... a better description might be that
>> it is an interface that allows you to
>> hook into between a webserver and other end points by either hooking
>> up an application or middleware
>> ( authentication, file serving ) that can be composed together as part
>> of a specific application.
>>
>> http://rack.rubyforge.org/
>> https://github.com/mmcgrana/ring
>> http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/
>
> Might be cool and useful.
> I guess that Seaside's WAServerAdaptor concept comes very close.
> It has the advantage that it's proven in the field, supporting many servers in different Smalltalk implementations.
> But maybe you already knew this.
>

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Mar 2011, at 19:13, Sean Allen wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a smalltalk equivalent for rack/wsgi/ring etc out there?
>>>
>>> I have an idea I'm going to play with that would be best served by
>>> building on something like rack.
>>> If there isn't one already, I'll implement one first and then move on
>>> to the idea that builds on it.
>>> If there is one, I'd rather see if it meets my needs and use it.
>>>
>>> Any pointers to anything appreciated.
>>>
>>> For  anyone not familiar with rack et al:
>>>
>>> They are basically' middleware' layers providing a standard interface
>>> between webservers and applications.
>>> Middleware is a little deceptive... a better description might be that
>>> it is an interface that allows you to
>>> hook into between a webserver and other end points by either hooking
>>> up an application or middleware
>>> ( authentication, file serving ) that can be composed together as part
>>> of a specific application.
>>>
>>> http://rack.rubyforge.org/
>>> https://github.com/mmcgrana/ring
>>> http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/
>>
>> Might be cool and useful.
>> I guess that Seaside's WAServerAdaptor concept comes very close.
>> It has the advantage that it's proven in the field, supporting many servers in different Smalltalk implementations.
>> But maybe you already knew this.
>>
>
> WAServerAdaptor isn't really much like ring, rack et al.

>>
>> WAServerAdaptor isn't really much like ring, rack et al.
>
> Yes and no. It has the same responsibility in the "Seaside stack" but
> is "object oriented" and not "string/byte array oriented" and more
> high level.
>
>> But it does put the thought into my mind that it would be interesting
>> down the road to
>> try and take the Seaside infrastructure and work something like rack into it.
>
>
> Well the "problem" is that "traditional" servers (Comanche, Swazoo,
> OpenTalk) used to "object oriented" and fully featured web servers.
> Since building something like that takes a lot of work more recent
> servers (FastCGI, SCGI, AJP) are "string/byte array oriented". The
> later ones are obviously easier to adapt to a ring/rack/wsgi style
> interface.

>>>
>>> WAServerAdaptor isn't really much like ring, rack et al.
>>
>> Yes and no. It has the same responsibility in the "Seaside stack" but
>> is "object oriented" and not "string/byte array oriented" and more
>> high level.
>>
>>> But it does put the thought into my mind that it would be interesting
>>> down the road to
>>> try and take the Seaside infrastructure and work something like rack into it.
>>
>>
>> Well the "problem" is that "traditional" servers (Comanche, Swazoo,
>> OpenTalk) used to "object oriented" and fully featured web servers.
>> Since building something like that takes a lot of work more recent
>> servers (FastCGI, SCGI, AJP) are "string/byte array oriented". The
>> later ones are obviously easier to adapt to a ring/rack/wsgi style
>> interface.
>
>
> a bit of background from me could help here.
> i'm going to end up having redline smalltalk using either netty or jetty be
> the final target for my own personal use of this when i'm done
> so the 'string/byte oriented' is going to be important to me.