I agree that rack is a good idea and while I don't completely agree with it's interface, i really like the premise of a common web-server to framework abstraction in the ruby world.
As jeremy pointed out it's unfortunate that rack seems to be succumbing to early feature creep. If the project could be split into a basic dispatching library and a tools library there would be a good chance for inclusion into ruby standard library. On Feb 18, 2008 1:20 AM, Jeremy Kemper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2008 9:43 PM, Nick Sieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the advantages would come if some enterprising individual were > > to look at writing a rails dispatcher based solely on Rack, and > > discarded all the cgi-based innards. Does such a thing seem possible? > > Very. AbstractRequest has some CGI-ish expectations, but Rack meets > them all. The existing session stores rely on CGI::Session, but that > could be changed without too much trouble. > > We only really use CGI as a standard way of getting an environment and > input stream for the request and a an output stream to send the > response. There's nothing particularly magic or arcane about working > with some other env/input/output webby API. > > jeremy > > > > > -- Tobi http://shopify.com - modern e-commerce software http://typo.leetsoft.com - Open source weblog engine http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
