From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Serving files with guile web server Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:44:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9838.187.147.43.113.1300318403.squirrel@lavabit.com> <58164.187.147.43.113.1300373729.squirrel@lavabit.com> <874o6z97gg.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <18101.189.215.48.232.1300553233.squirrel@lavabit.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301582669 9842 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2011 14:44:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, Neil Jerram To: romel@lavabit.com Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 31 16:44:20 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5J6h-0000Gz-W0 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:44:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45365 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5J6h-0007Rx-Ex for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:44:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33434 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5J6c-0007RU-LH for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:44:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5J6a-0006jR-CK for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:44:14 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:34012 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5J6a-0006jH-8g for guile-user@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:44:12 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AC34E72; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:46:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=uI9tH1h1p5H0XjGLTZv3z2utwA0=; b=nv7Q+p XNKzVCw4SIYrFCZL8B5jqwNKSnYbpJZp3dz3/coAfTMl5Ct51fwfQ0DVJbG78V7r k2Iz3QeUirhef4OWhokxKf1sZ1bB+rd5reJJB8XpIA3YWds+cMFbpiodlYgHy8bX vzoZW5pVMIMyi8Od7wKjshZqNPzTO2vOu8Zzk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=w3mhQbRRe3ulGldSdymvxg12yrnjPCV+ JxWk+NaTggrMrX0aoipcgK12bY68T1FHrcdcBVyNCKj3IMQeHXHqwcghvciIlF4S 0P5zVnMgN7zxj/N8tFuynH8nscGDrPELlZtzYkwxwYOUkmzTX/qrm8jqhp+hPzuJ dxrOaW25IvY= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC174E71; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 097AE4E70; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:45:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <18101.189.215.48.232.1300553233.squirrel@lavabit.com> (romel@lavabit.com's message of "Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:47:13 -0400 (EDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 96CE7AC4-5BA5-11E0-AA58-E8AB60295C12-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8563 Archived-At: On Sat 19 Mar 2011 17:47, romel@lavabit.com writes: >> romel@lavabit.com writes: >> >>> I gave a second read to the manual and found: >>> >>> "The handler should return two values: the response, as a >>> record from (web response), and the response body as a string, >>> bytevector, >>> or #f if not present." > > This is true but I found that when it comes about text is better to use a > lambda that receive a port and then write text to that port. I have added info about returning procedures as response bodies to the doc. Thanks. It would be good for sanitize-response to support ports as well, I think. > I think that it would be great to have a standalone server so you can > instant hack something, or even for production, I think it could be > scalable using clusters. I think more standalone capabilities is a good thing. It's nice to be able to throw up a server for testing. For production though you really need to not do blocking reads or writes. > Guile web module it's great! Thanks! Have fun and let us know how it goes :) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/