[erlang-questions] Misultin EOL

Tim Watson watson.timothy@REDACTED
Sun Feb 19 00:42:20 CET 2012

On 18 February 2012 14:32, Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED> wrote:
> I quite agree - this code was just a proof-of-concept not
> frozen in stone.

Sure, I understood that.

> As I see things there are two layers:
> *inside* EHE I'd write code like this:
>   <?e Value = SYS:get_key(Key),,, ?>
> SYS:get_key(Val) would have a well defined type that never changes.
> *outside* EHE I would define the semantics of get_key
> so I could say If I wanted a memory resident db, persistent,
> replicated, authenticated and so on.

Makes sense to me.

>> which include
>> 1. what libraries I use to serialise/de-serialise data
>> 2. what scripting and/or templating libraries I wish to use to
>> generate content (if this approach is in play)
>> 3. what response codes I want to send to the client
>> So I fundamentally like where you're going with this, but it's a bit
>> too high a level of abstraction for a 'generic web server api' and is
>> making too many choices about these things (above). You need to offer
>> lower level APIs that bridge the different web servers, as
>> simple_bridge does. And on that note, if parameterised modules are
>> going to be official and 'ok' soon, then simple_bridge is actually a
>> long way ahead already, so maybe it's worth spending some time looking
>> at it too.
> I agree

Cool - I think Ulf's point about parameterised modules was a good one.
They've been around for ages and should be 'finalised' now. I'm very
excited to see where this stuff goes.



More information about the erlang-questions mailing list