On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:39:53 +0200 Issac Goldstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Akins, Brian wrote: > > On 3/26/08 9:06 AM, "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> There seems to be a demand for dynamic per-request configuration, > >> as evidenced by the number of users hacking it with mod_rewrite, > >> and the other very limited tools available. Modern mod_rewrite > >> usage commonly looks like programming, but it's not designed as > >> a programming language. Result: confused and frustrated users. > > > > > > This is what I had in mind when I suggested having <Lua> blocks of > > code. No need to invent a new language when a perfectly fine one > > exists... I'm not talking about inventing a new language. Those who want one have some options already, as noted below ... > > FWIW, it's done with <Perl> blocks too (I do some funky things that > way), BUT I'm not sure if those are parsed per-request as I think > Nick is suggesting. Neither am I, FWIW. > Also, many times people don't want to bloat > their processes with a fully-fleged interpreter That is much more of a consideration. As I said, the basic idea is to provide a much simpler rationalisation for the kind of things people struggle to do with mod_rewrite et al. > (again, I'm building > on my mod_perl experience here - I know that the shared Perl objects > are pretty clunky, and not sure if mod_wombat looks the same). AFAICT mod_wombat just provides Lua bindings (some of them stubs) for hooks exported from the core. Nothing for configuration. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
