4 ms·
Hmm, there seems to be quite a bit less here than in, say, Weblocks. No widget system, no form support, no AJAX support. Anyone else here using Weblocks?
by ScottBurson 15y ago
Hmm, there seems to be quite a bit less here than in, say, Weblocks. No widget system, no form support, no AJAX support.
Anyone else here using Weblocks?
- msbarnett 15y agoWell, by analogy with Rack, WSGI, Ring, Plack, etc, widget systems and forms and AJAX are way outside the scope of the problem that Clack is trying to solve. All of these systems boil down to providing a simple convention for web applications to interface with web servers by implementing exactly one function that takes the environment and returns a triple of response code, content-type, and content. Everything else you describe would be built on top of this, not built into this.
- evangineer 15y agoYou've missed the point here, think framework-agnostic web server interface (like WSGI or Rack) rather than web framework (like Django or Rails). The Weblocks developers could use Clack to interface to web servers like Nginx or Apache rather than maintain their own web server interfaces.
- evangineer 15y agoCaveman is an example of a minimal Common Lisp web framework built on top of Clack. https://github.com/fukamachi/caveman/ https://github.com/fukamachi/caveman/ Same developer is building a much richer framework called Utopian on top of Caveman. https://github.com/fukamachi/utopian https://github.com/fukamachi/utopian
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- nunb 15y agoI use weblocks for small demos and private stuff, but at work it's all Clojure now.
- wglb 15y agoSomething like this: http://brehaut.net/blog/2011/ring_introduction http://brehaut.net/blog/2011/ring_introduction ?