[erlang-questions] Misultin EOL

[Tim Watson]

On 16 February 2012 22:05, Roberto Ostinelli <roberto@REDACTED> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Jesse Gumm <gumm@REDACTED> wrote:
>
>> Not to state the obvious or anything, but Misultin is open source, so
>> someone could always step up to the plate and become the *official*
>> fork.
>>
>> There will still be efforts to support Misultin: Chicago Boss uses it,
>> and barring some serious arguments against it, I'll still be adding
>> misultin support to Nitrogen and SimpleBridge for the upcoming 2.1.0
>> release.
>>
>> So while it's unfortunate that Roberto is stepping away from Misultin
>> development, that doesn't mean it's necessarily dead - someone can
>> always take over.
>>
>> -Jesse
>
>
> hi jesse,
>
> please don't suggest that. while i cannot avoid someone doing so, i could
> have kept maintaing misultin myself. as i said, it has been a hard decision.
>
> my intent here is to avoid duplication of efforts, both for the
> contributors of the community (often reporting the same bugs in both
> repositories) and for the developers, which now have an hard time in
> deciding which way to go.
>
> i just wanted to clear the way for a single webserver library, and cowboy
> seems to have much more developer time to actually maintaining it.
>

Personally I don't understand why having a single library is so great,
although I respect your decision to do this and am very grateful for all
the hard work you've put into misultin to date.

In *java-land* I like being able to choose between Tomcat, Jetty (for
embedded stuff) and other commercial options too. I don't see why it's a
bad thing at all, although I would *really* love it if Erlang had just one
API for building standard web applications (a la servlets, but obviously
more 'erlang-ish' in flavour) and then interesting stuff like Chicago Boss
can be built on top of it.

Personally I'm not keen on simple bridge because I don't like parameterised
modules, but in every other respect I think it's a laudable effort. If we
could standardise on an API - and god knows, I *really like* the one in
Cowboy - then I personally think that would provide more benefit than
having 'just one implementation'. Personally I don't think having just one
implementation is the answer though.


>
> r.
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20120217/91c333f2/attachment.htm>