I see. Yeah, I stand corrected. I was conflating continuation-based and closure-based webservers because both allow straight-line code instead of explicitly ma

I see. Yeah, I stand corrected. I was conflating continuation-based and closure-based webservers because both allow straight-line code instead of explicitly managing url handlers. And the traditional rhetoric in favor of this technique has come from Seaside, which popularized the name 'continuation-based' (http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7424 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7424; http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2006/05/server-side-javascript.html http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2006/05/server-side-javascript....) I'd never seen anybody say this is just an early-prototyping technique. But searching found Patrick Collison concur: http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-continuation-based-web-framework http://www.quora.com/Whats-the-best-continuation-based-web-f... It was too harsh to say it paints us into a corner; it is possible to replace fnid links with new defops. I went back and looked at the frontpage when not logged-in, and saw that there are 0 fnid links in that common case. (One possible way to gradually use a second server would be to just serve the frontpage off it. You'd need to move to a centralized store for user/profile/story objects, but the fnids table could continue to live on one server.) It also turns out that there's at least one company trying to scale continuation-based servers (http://bc.tech.coop/blog/040404.html http://bc.tech.coop/blog/040404.html). So it was overly harsh to call it a dead end.