www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Apache "mod_d" needs C to instantiate D interpreter?

reply JFD <jfd nospam.com> writes:
A potential "mod_d" Apache module would go a long way to promote D language to
the web application world.

But it seems that implementing a "mod_d" Apache module may require that C
instantiates a D language interpreter (similar to Py_NewInterpreter() for
Python), or do the functionality of RDMD with compiled code caching, but in C.
 Is that possible?  (Presumably it might be possible to hack up a solution,
but could there be an officially supported way?)

I know that FastCGI with RDMD can do something similar, but a "mod_d" should
have higher system performance and scalability.

Thank you.  D is the best!  Keep up the good work.
Nov 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes gmail.com> writes:
JFD schrieb:

 A potential "mod_d" Apache module would go a long way to promote D language to
 the web application world.
 
 But it seems that implementing a "mod_d" Apache module may require that C
 instantiates a D language interpreter (similar to Py_NewInterpreter() for
 Python), or do the functionality of RDMD with compiled code caching, but in C.
  Is that possible?  (Presumably it might be possible to hack up a solution,
 but could there be an officially supported way?)
 
 I know that FastCGI with RDMD can do something similar, but a "mod_d" should
 have higher system performance and scalability.
 
 Thank you.  D is the best!  Keep up the good work.
 


A FastCGI solution could be used with other webservers as well.

I don't know how Apache modules work, but instantiating a D language
interpreter 
sounds strange, because D isn't an interpreted language.

"Interpreting" D code may work as well by compiling it when invoked (like rdmd 
does).. but I don't know if you wanna do something like that on a web server.

It may be possible to code your web application in D and make it an apache 
module, so you'd have one module per application..
Or maybe one could write a module that loads shared libraries that may be 
written in D?


Cheers,
- Daniel
Nov 08 2010
parent reply JFD <jfd nospam.com> writes:
Yes, you're right.  One should implement Apache module in D.

One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.  I've figure
that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be callable
from
C, so that was easy.  Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one could
build
it roughly like this:

Let DMD build a .a library:
dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d

Then convert it to shared library:
gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a

Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?

Then it's all D from there on.  Cool!

Thank you.
Nov 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/8/10 4:37 PM, JFD wrote:

 Yes, you're right.  One should implement Apache module in D.

 One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.  I've
figure
 that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be callable
from
 C, so that was easy.  Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one could
build
 it roughly like this:

 Let DMD build a .a library:
 dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d

 Then convert it to shared library:
 gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a

 Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?

 Then it's all D from there on.  Cool!

 Thank you.


People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company 
might be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code 
into a page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to 
implement. Also, D code should be able to call PHP code (which is a bit 
less difficult than it seems because we use HPHP, a PHP to C++ translator).

Andrei
Nov 08 2010
next sibling parent Torarin <torarind gmail.com> writes:
2010/11/9 Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>:

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might
 be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement. Also,
 D code should be able to call PHP code (which is a bit less difficult than
 it seems because we use HPHP, a PHP to C++ translator).

 Andrei


I got the impression that Facebook does not use Apache for serving php
pages since Hiphop runs programs in their own server (using libev, I
think)? And FastCGI is really just an awkward reincarnation of HTTP.
So perhaps the optimal situation is to have D interface with the web
not through a plugin, but rather through an HTTP server class. If
necessary, it can then sit behind an Apache proxy.
Nov 08 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might 
 be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code into a 
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most 
of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good 
reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML 
template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.
Nov 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/8/10 9:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


I'm simplifying matters a fair amount. Indeed mixing php with hardcoded 
html has been mostly removed from the code base. The point remains that 
easily writing D code that gets executed to load a page would be a boon.

Andrei
Nov 08 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:ibam3u$1b5c$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/8/10 9:17 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company 
 might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by 
 most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an 
 HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less 
 shitty.


 I'm simplifying matters a fair amount. Indeed mixing php with hardcoded 
 html has been mostly removed from the code base. The point remains that 
 easily writing D code that gets executed to load a page would be a boon.


I see. Although I haven't had a chance to start on it yet, one of my top 
"pet project" priorities isto take Adam Rupee's web-related code and turn it 
into a rails/django-like thing. It's been by dream for far too long now to 
use D for my web development work.
Nov 08 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply spir <denis.spir gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:17:48 -0500
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote:


 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company mi=




ght=20

 be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code into a=




=20

 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement. =




=20

=20
 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by mos=


t=20

 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good=20
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HT=


ML=20

 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


For sure. See "Enforcing Strict Model-View Separation in Template Engines" =
http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/papers/mvc.templates.pdf

Denis
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany =E2=98=A3

spir.wikidot.com
Nov 08 2010
next sibling parent reply Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 11/8/10 10:36 PM, spir wrote:

 On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:17:48 -0500
 "Nick Sabalausky"<a a.a>  wrote:


 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


 For sure. See "Enforcing Strict Model-View Separation in Template Engines"
http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/papers/mvc.templates.pdf


Love that work.

Andrei
Nov 08 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:ibark6$1k38$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/8/10 10:36 PM, spir wrote:

 On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:17:48 -0500
 "Nick Sabalausky"<a a.a>  wrote:


 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company 
 might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by 
 most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an 
 HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less 
 shitty.


 For sure. See "Enforcing Strict Model-View Separation in Template 
 Engines" http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/papers/mvc.templates.pdf


 Love that work.


Ahh, I see that's written by the ANTLR/StringTemplate guy. I never read that 
paper, but the docs for his StringTemplate were a big part of what convinced 
me that template engines shouldn't try to be full-fledged imperative 
programming languages.
Nov 08 2010
parent reply sybrandy <sybrandy gmail.com> writes:
 Ahh, I see that's written by the ANTLR/StringTemplate guy. I never read that
 paper, but the docs for his StringTemplate were a big part of what convinced
 me that template engines shouldn't try to be full-fledged imperative
 programming languages.


I've done web development for a chunk of my career and I have to agree. 
  To me, there should be a clean separation between code and templates. 
  Templates that have looping in them are garbage to me as now you have 
logic in two different places.

The best templating solution that I've seen is Template::Recall for Perl 
(http://search.cpan.org/~gilad/Template-Recall-0.15/lib/Template/Recall.pm)

In this case, there is no logic in the template.  You "render" the 
different parts of the template as needed and you have full control 
within your code.  To me, something like this should be part of the 
standard library as it would make outputting formatted text much easier 
in those cases where there is a standardized format, like XML or HTML.

Casey
Nov 09 2010
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"sybrandy" <sybrandy gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ibbkh3$fvh$1 digitalmars.com...

 Ahh, I see that's written by the ANTLR/StringTemplate guy. I never read 
 that
 paper, but the docs for his StringTemplate were a big part of what 
 convinced
 me that template engines shouldn't try to be full-fledged imperative
 programming languages.


 I've done web development for a chunk of my career and I have to agree. To 
 me, there should be a clean separation between code and templates. 
 Templates that have looping in them are garbage to me as now you have 
 logic in two different places.

 The best templating solution that I've seen is Template::Recall for Perl 
 (http://search.cpan.org/~gilad/Template-Recall-0.15/lib/Template/Recall.pm)

 In this case, there is no logic in the template.  You "render" the 
 different parts of the template as needed and you have full control within 
 your code.  To me, something like this should be part of the standard 
 library as it would make outputting formatted text much easier in those 
 cases where there is a standardized format, like XML or HTML.


Judging by that link, yea, that sounds a lot like StringTemplate: 
http://www.antlr.org/wiki/display/ST/StringTemplate+Documentation
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"spir" <denis.spir gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.201.1289284596.21107.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...

 On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:17:48 -0500
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote:


 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company 
 might
 be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code into 
 a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by 
 most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an 
 HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less 
 shitty.


 For sure. See "Enforcing Strict Model-View Separation in Template Engines"
 http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/papers/mvc.templates.pdf


The funny thing is, ColdFusion actually came pretty close (at least in 
general concept). It had mostly the right idea (DBMS for the model and HTML 
templates for the view), but where it shot itself in the foot was giving 
little-to-no control over the "Controller" part of MVC.
Nov 08 2010
prev sibling parent Roman Ivanov <isroman.DEL ETE.km.ru> writes:
On 11/9/2010 1:36 AM, spir wrote:

 On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 00:17:48 -0500
 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote:
 

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might 
 be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code into a 
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.  


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most 
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good 
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML 
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


 
 For sure. See "Enforcing Strict Model-View Separation in Template Engines"
http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/papers/mvc.templates.pdf
 
 Denis
 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
 vit esse estrany ☣
 
 spir.wikidot.com
 


I wanted to write a long, detailed reply on this subject, but never got
enough time. So I want to write a shorter reply before it's too late.
Sorry for the bullet list, I had trouble making it more coherent.

1. You cannot truly enforce Model-View separation by restricting what
can be done inside templates. Programmers can still put presentation
code inside controllers (and inside other parts of their code), which
breaks Model-View separation.

2. There have been many attempts to introduce more or less "pure"
templating systems in various languages. PHP has Smarty. ASP has
WebForms. The real benefits of such systems just don't live up to the
expectations. WebForms, for example, is responsible for creation of many
truly horrendous "legacy" systems. They were too restrictive, so
programmers resolved to hackish workarounds.

In the long run, the developer community responded by creating new
template systems (Savant for PHP, MVC/Razor for ASP) that used the host
language for templating.

3. The purpose of a templating enging shouldn't be to separate HTML from
code. It should be separation of presentation logic from the rest of
application logic. And yes, you can do that with restricted templates,
but you also can do it with Turing-complete ones. It's possible to
create a mess with both of these approaches too.

4. The particular system described in the paper relies on
Turing-complete "render" (I would call it pre-render) phase for doing
complex processing of data before display.  This can be abused just like
embedded code is abused.

5. Practical questions should be addressed. If I use templating system A
vs B in a real-life environment, which one would result in a more
maintainable system design overall? (Having "clean" templates and
horrendous mess of hacks that supports it is hardly an achievement,
right?) Which one would allow me, while creating real websites, to do my
work in less time? Learning curve is not to be sneered at as well.

6. Here are couple of uses cases which I don't think the described
system wouldn't handle very well.

Let's say you have pagination on your website. Displaying page numbers
is clearly a matter of presentation, not controller logic. However,
since you can't do any computation in templates, you wouldn't be able to
calculate page numbers of interest.

Another case is internationalization. Internationalized strings are not
"models"  that you pass into templates, yet they need to be mutable.
There are many solutions to this, but I don't see any of them fitting
the system in the paper.

...

I'm not arguing in favor of random spaghetti code, but I would argue
that in many cases Turing-complete templates are simpler to use without
any considerable degradation of maintainability.
Nov 24 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-09 06:17, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


You will always need some kind of code in the views, to print out the 
contents of the models, if you don't go with the Lift approach and 
creating new HTML tags.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Eric Poggel <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> writes:
On 11/9/2010 12:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


I've always felt the opposite way.  It's been a while since I've worked 
with Asp.net controls, but I remember something like this:

<ul id="List"></ul>
.....

for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
     List.innerHtml += "<li>" + sanitize(someArray[i]) + "</li>"

While php would do something like:

<ul id="List">
     <?php foreach($someArray as $item):?>
         <li><?=sanitize($item)?></li>
     <?php endforeach?>
</ul>


separate model and controller logic from the html view, but the 
"immediate mode" of php embedding helps me avoid the awkwardness of 
building html through string concatenations in another file.  I get to 
see the html structure exactly as it is.

This is where people usually jump in and suggest a templating system, 
but I think it's silly to invent a second language when the first is 
more than up to the task.  I always find myself thinking:  I know how to 
do this in php or java, but how do I do this in the templating language?

I welcome counter-arguments.  Maybe I can be enlightened?
Nov 09 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Eric Poggel" <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> wrote in message 
news:ibcn72$2u3r$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/9/2010 12:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>  wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company 
 might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>  to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by 
 most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an 
 HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less 
 shitty.


 I've always felt the opposite way.  It's been a while since I've worked 
 with Asp.net controls, but I remember something like this:

 <ul id="List"></ul>
 .....

 for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
     List.innerHtml += "<li>" + sanitize(someArray[i]) + "</li>"


Ouch, yea, that is awful (but I've done worse - I once tried to build HTML 
buy manually adding nodes to an XML DOM...it seemed like a good idea until I 
actually started doing it). I've done very little with ASP.NET, and it's 
been awhile since I've even looked at it, but my understanding is that 
you're supposed to do it more like this:

<!-- template for defining a List here -->
<ul id="List"></ul>

<!-- template for defining a ListElem here -->
<li id="ListElem"></li>

someListElem.innerHtml = sanitize(someArray[i])

Or something vaguely like that anyway. Yea, it's definitely still not as 
good as rails/django/haxeIgniter/etc, though. A good HTML templating system 
like what those use won't lead you to HTML-string-concatenation. I just 
mentioned ASP.NET because I seemed to remember it being template-based in 
some way.


 While php would do something like:

 <ul id="List">
     <?php foreach($someArray as $item):?>
         <li><?=sanitize($item)?></li>
     <?php endforeach?>
 </ul>


 separate model and controller logic from the html view, but the "immediate 
 mode" of php embedding helps me avoid the awkwardness of building html 
 through string concatenations in another file.  I get to see the html 
 structure exactly as it is.


I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed 
view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


 This is where people usually jump in and suggest a templating system, but 
 I think it's silly to invent a second language when the first is more than 
 up to the task.  I always find myself thinking:  I know how to do this in 
 php or java, but how do I do this in the templating language?

 I welcome counter-arguments.  Maybe I can be enlightened?


If you look up StringTemplate (related to ANTLR), there was a fairly 
convincing explanation, although the more I think about it, I can't remember 
what the hell it was (something about forcing excess logic to stay out of 
the view, I guess, maybe...honestly I totally forget).
Nov 09 2010
next sibling parent reply Eric Poggel <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> writes:
On 11/9/2010 7:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed
 view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


Are there any web-friendly languages that are mature, offer the sanity
Nov 09 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Eric Poggel" <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> wrote in message 
news:ibd00s$dli$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/9/2010 7:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed
 view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


 Are there any web-friendly languages that are mature, offer the sanity and 



I doubt it. The only "php immediate mode" stuff I'm aware of PHP itself, and 
classic-style ASP using either VBScript or JScript (And sort of ColdFusion, 
but you'd probably just be better off with PHP). The unpopularity of that 
style probably means that nothing else like that is in the works. And 
web-oriended languages seem to usually be dynamic aside from the Java and 
ASP.NET camps.
Nov 09 2010
next sibling parent Roman Ivanov <one example.com> writes:
== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a a.a)'s article

 "Eric Poggel" <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> wrote in message
 news:ibd00s$dli$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/9/2010 7:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed
 view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


 Are there any web-friendly languages that are mature, offer the sanity and



 I doubt it. The only "php immediate mode" stuff I'm aware of PHP itself, and
 classic-style ASP using either VBScript or JScript (And sort of ColdFusion,
 but you'd probably just be better off with PHP). The unpopularity of that
 style probably means that nothing else like that is in the works. And
 web-oriended languages seem to usually be dynamic aside from the Java and
 ASP.NET camps.


== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a a.a)'s article

 "Eric Poggel" <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> wrote in message
 news:ibd00s$dli$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/9/2010 7:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed
 view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


 Are there any web-friendly languages that are mature, offer the sanity and



 I doubt it. The only "php immediate mode" stuff I'm aware of PHP itself, and
 classic-style ASP using either VBScript or JScript


Ahem...

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/07/02/introducing-razor.aspx
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling parent Adam Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Eric Poggel wrote:

 Are there any web-friendly languages that are mature, offer the sanity and




We could do it in D, somewhat easily. Here's an implementation with only mild
bugginess:

===

import std.file;
import std.string;
import std.stdio;
import std.process;

void main(string[] args) {
        string imports = q{
                import std.stdio;
                import std.string;
                import std.file;
                import std.conv;
                import std.algorithm;
                import std.date;
        };

        string mainf = `void main(string[] args) {`;

        bool inD = false;

        string currentLiteral = "";

        string currentPrinter = "";

        void addToCurrentLiteral(string s) {
                currentLiteral ~= s.replace("`", "`~\"`\"~`");
        }

        void outputCurrentLiteral() {
                if(currentLiteral.length == 0)
                        return;

                mainf ~= "writef(\"%s\", `"~currentLiteral~"`);";

                currentLiteral.length = 0;
        }

        void appendCode(string line) {
                outputCurrentLiteral;
                if(line.length > 6 && line[0..6] == "import")
                        imports ~= line;
                else
                        mainf ~= line;
        }

        foreach(ln; stdin.byLine) {
                string line = ln.idup ~ "\n";
          modeSwitch:
                if(line.length == 0)
                        continue;
                if(!inD) {
                        int idx = line.indexOf("<?");
                        if(idx == -1) {
                                addToCurrentLiteral(line);
                        } else {
                                char c = line[idx+2];
                                switch(c) {
                                        case 'd':
                                               
addToCurrentLiteral(line[0..idx]);
                                                inD = true;
                                                line = line[idx + 3 .. $];
                                                goto modeSwitch;
                                        break;
                                        case '=':
                                               
addToCurrentLiteral(line[0..idx]);

                                                int end =
line[idx+2..$].indexOf("?>");
                                                if(end == -1) throw new
Exception("<?= ?> must be on one line");
                                                end += idx + 2;

                                                outputCurrentLiteral;

                                                mainf ~= `writef("%s",
`~line[idx+3..end].replace(`"`, `\"`)~`);`;

                                                line = line[end+2..$];
                                                goto modeSwitch;
                                        break;
                                        default:
                                                addToCurrentLiteral(line);
                                }
                        }
                } else {
                        int idx = line.indexOf("?>");

                        if(idx == -1) {
                                appendCode(line);
                        } else {
                                appendCode(line[0..idx]);
                                line = line[idx+2..$];
                                inD = false;
                                goto modeSwitch;
                        }
                }
        }

        outputCurrentLiteral;

        mainf ~= `}`;

        std.file.write("/tmp/tempdprog.d", imports ~ mainf);

        system("dmd -run /tmp/tempdprog.d");
}

===


Here's an example of use:

======

$ cat test.dhp
hello world
<?d auto eat = "eat me!"; ?>
this is awful
<?=eat?>
<?d
        string functionsWorkToo() {
                return "because nested functions rock!";
        }

        writeln(functionsWorkToo());
?>
Bye!

=======

And running it:

======
$ cat test.dhp | ./dhp
hello world

this is awful
eat me!
because nested functions rock!

Bye!
========



Of course, you'll want to add an automatic import for a cgi module so that's
available, and change the writefs to cgi.outs or whatever, but that's easy. (You
could use mine: http://arsdnet.net/dcode/cgi.d or your own)

The big bug I know of is if the ?> appears in a quoted string it'll screw up.
But
meh, it's a 15 minute implementation.



A huge improvement would be to send the code to rdmd instead of a temp file then
dmd like I did here. rdmd will cache the executable and give it a unique
temporary
name so it will be faster and less prone to overwrites. But that just now came
to
my mind...



To use it like php, you'd just add an apache handler to treat those dhp files
as a
CGI application... and you might need to add a shebang to the top too so the OS
knows what program to run.

A tiny apache module could probably get rid of the shebang requirement.




But this shows that it isn't terribly hard to make it work at least a little.


btw, loops work too:

===
Hello


<?d
        foreach(i; 0..5) {
?>
        Loops work too, like in PHP (<?= i ?>). Well, sort of; you don't have to
terminate it here which might be confusing. I saw add the braces anyway.

<?d } ?>
Bye!
=======

Prints out that inner text 5 times, as you'd expect... as long as you keep the
braces. Without the braces, it will only print the first part of the literal.
(Consider how the program works - take blocks of text and put out a write
statement for them. A foreach without braces would only call the first write;
the
others are outside the loop.)
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-10 03:28, Eric Poggel wrote:

 On 11/9/2010 7:25 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed
 view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


 Are there any web-friendly languages that are mature, offer the sanity



Scala using the Lift framework perhaps. Scala has built in support for 
XML literals. Acutally I think Lift is more into the idea of creating 
new HTML-tags instead of mixing Scala and HTML.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-10 01:25, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Eric Poggel"<dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net>  wrote in message
 news:ibcn72$2u3r$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/9/2010 12:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>   wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company
 might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?>   to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by
 most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an
 HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less
 shitty.


 I've always felt the opposite way.  It's been a while since I've worked
 with Asp.net controls, but I remember something like this:

 <ul id="List"></ul>
 .....

 for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
      List.innerHtml += "<li>" + sanitize(someArray[i]) +"</li>"


 Ouch, yea, that is awful (but I've done worse - I once tried to build HTML
 buy manually adding nodes to an XML DOM...it seemed like a good idea until I
 actually started doing it). I've done very little with ASP.NET, and it's
 been awhile since I've even looked at it, but my understanding is that
 you're supposed to do it more like this:

 <!-- template for defining a List here -->
 <ul id="List"></ul>

 <!-- template for defining a ListElem here -->
 <li id="ListElem"></li>

 someListElem.innerHtml = sanitize(someArray[i])

 Or something vaguely like that anyway. Yea, it's definitely still not as
 good as rails/django/haxeIgniter/etc, though. A good HTML templating system
 like what those use won't lead you to HTML-string-concatenation. I just
 mentioned ASP.NET because I seemed to remember it being template-based in
 some way.


As far as I know you could create a framework using ASP.NET that is as 
good as rails/django/haxeIgniter/etc. You could write almost the same 
could as the PHP example below in ASP.NET, just replace <?php with <% 
and <?= with <%=. Although it will look somewhat ugly at the end with <% 
} %>


 While php would do something like:

 <ul id="List">
      <?php foreach($someArray as $item):?>
          <li><?=sanitize($item)?></li>
      <?php endforeach?>
 </ul>


 separate model and controller logic from the html view, but the "immediate
 mode" of php embedding helps me avoid the awkwardness of building html
 through string concatenations in another file.  I get to see the html
 structure exactly as it is.


 I could probably live with that as long as the "PHP template" stayed
 view-only and didn't grow too much logic.


 This is where people usually jump in and suggest a templating system, but
 I think it's silly to invent a second language when the first is more than
 up to the task.  I always find myself thinking:  I know how to do this in
 php or java, but how do I do this in the templating language?

 I welcome counter-arguments.  Maybe I can be enlightened?


 If you look up StringTemplate (related to ANTLR), there was a fairly
 convincing explanation, although the more I think about it, I can't remember
 what the hell it was (something about forcing excess logic to stay out of
 the view, I guess, maybe...honestly I totally forget).



-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling parent Adam Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 (but I've done worse - I once tried to build HTML
 buy manually adding nodes to an XML DOM...it seemed like a good idea
 until I actually started doing it).


This is actually one of the methods I've been using in my D web apps throughout
the year. It's not that bad if you extend DOM with D.

Compare:

auto table = cast(Table) document.getElementById("mytable");
assert(table !is null);

foreach(item; myArray) {
    table.appendRow(th(item.id),
        new Link(item.name, "myappurl", ["mode": "view-item-details", "id" :
to!string(item.id)),
        item.owner,
        item.comments.brief);
}


With the godawful equivalent in Javascript. The DOM extensions also make
multi-page forms trivial:

auto form = cast(Form) document.getElementById("my-form");
assert(form !is null);

foreach(k, v; cgi.post)
    form.setValue(k, v);


That adds all the data POSTed in to the form. form.setValue is smart enough to
work with existing fields, or add new ones as hidden inputs. (Existing fields
including check boxes, selects, radio groups, etc. It Just Works with just about
any html.)


I used to dread having to make edit capabilities.

<input type="text" name="whatever" value="<?= $myVal" />

And setting myVal and repeating over and over and over and over and over and
over
and over again. Then the hell:

<input type="checkbox" name="sucky" <?php if(isset($_POST['sucky'])) echo
'checked="checked"; else echo ''; ?> />

Then hell isn't strong enough of a word.

<select><option value="1" <?= ($value == 1) ? "selected" : ""?>>blah</option>
REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT </select>


Now, I can just use the two line loop and it works in all cases. Another huge
benefit of the extended dom is:

h2.innerText = myTitle;


The innerText property, a MS extension in Javascript, automatically escapes the
string for safe output (like all DOM methods, except for innerHTML itself) and
is
easy to use.

No:

h2.appendChild(document.createTextNode(myTitle));

Ugh.





Anyway with a few little DOM extensions, this actually becomes quite usable. It
isn't always perfect, so my code also has variables in the template: {$myVar} in
the html and in the D, document.vars["myVar"] = to!string(whatever); Naturally,
the template variables are all automatically escaped.



The last thing I added are a could special html tags and attributes.

<include file="blah" /> to share template files.

<table class="striped">
<ul class="striped">

etc.etc. Elements with the striped class get every other relevant child marked
with class="odd", so I can add the color or whatever in the css file:

table.striped .odd { background-color: teal; color: red !important; }

(lol colors)

The program is smart enough to mark only the correct elements as .odd. If it is
ul.striped, it gets every other immediate li child. For a table, it goes for
table

 tbody > tr.odd.


(This reminds me: document.getElementsBySelector() is a godsend extension too.)




But, generally, what other templates solve with loops or recursion, I try to
solve
with classes and css. We've been live for 8 months now, and I haven't felt the
need to add looping to my template. The closest I have is:

<list from="collection" format="html output format for each element" />

But even this very rarely actually specifies the format: the context-aware code
does the right thing in most situations, and when it doesn't, it tends to be a
one
or two line DOM fixup anyway.


"Doesn't this violate Model and View separation???" No, I don't think so. The
HTML
at this level is extremely minimal, if any is specified in the code at all. It
only decorates the semantics of the data, which isn't really view related. Give
it
just enough markup so the stylesheet can take over without needing to pull your
hair out.

I wonder how many of the HTML template solutions were made by people who don't
understand CSS. CSS can't really do all the work by itself, so you keep the html
framework around it, but when it comes down to styling individual data elements,
CSS is really very good at it. If you are changing the html to change your view
at
that level, I'd say you're doing it wrong, template or no template.
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-10 00:57, Eric Poggel wrote:

 On 11/9/2010 12:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company
 might
 be helped if they could simply write<?d ... ?> to insert D code into a
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by
 most
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an
 HTML
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less
 shitty.


 I've always felt the opposite way. It's been a while since I've worked
 with Asp.net controls, but I remember something like this:

 <ul id="List"></ul>
 .....

 for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
 List.innerHtml += "<li>" + sanitize(someArray[i]) + "</li>"

 While php would do something like:

 <ul id="List">
 <?php foreach($someArray as $item):?>
 <li><?=sanitize($item)?></li>
 <?php endforeach?>
 </ul>


I would as well. I don't think it's wrong adding a some code to the 
views to help write HTML, the example above is a perfect example.



 separate model and controller logic from the html view, but the
 "immediate mode" of php embedding helps me avoid the awkwardness of
 building html through string concatenations in another file. I get to
 see the html structure exactly as it is.

 This is where people usually jump in and suggest a templating system,
 but I think it's silly to invent a second language when the first is
 more than up to the task. I always find myself thinking: I know how to
 do this in php or java, but how do I do this in the templating language?

 I welcome counter-arguments. Maybe I can be enlightened?


Isn't a PHP kind of a template system? It's created for web development 
and to be able to mix HTML and PHP out of the box.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling parent sybrandy <sybrandy gmail.com> writes:
On 11/09/2010 06:57 PM, Eric Poggel wrote:

 I've always felt the opposite way. It's been a while since I've worked
 with Asp.net controls, but I remember something like this:

 <ul id="List"></ul>
 .....

 for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
 List.innerHtml += "<li>" + sanitize(someArray[i]) + "</li>"

 While php would do something like:

 <ul id="List">
 <?php foreach($someArray as $item):?>
 <li><?=sanitize($item)?></li>
 <?php endforeach?>
 </ul>


 separate model and controller logic from the html view, but the
 "immediate mode" of php embedding helps me avoid the awkwardness of
 building html through string concatenations in another file. I get to
 see the html structure exactly as it is.

 This is where people usually jump in and suggest a templating system,
 but I think it's silly to invent a second language when the first is
 more than up to the task. I always find myself thinking: I know how to
 do this in php or java, but how do I do this in the templating language?

 I welcome counter-arguments. Maybe I can be enlightened?



the formatting with code.  As I stated in a different reply in this 
thread, Perls Template::Recall on CPAN is the best templating solution 
I've found as it completely separates the template from the code.  Also, 
it's not tied to just HTML/XML, so it can be used for a variety of 
purposes.  Lastly, by having the separation of code and template, one 
person can be responsible for designing the HTML for the web page while 
another can populate the HTML.  If the HTML changes, it can be done in a 
way that the code does not change.

Casey
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling parent Roman Ivanov <isroman.DEL ETE.km.ru> writes:
On 11/9/2010 12:17 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote in message 
 news:ibaepi$vfh$1 digitalmars.com...

 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company might 
 be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code into a 
 page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to implement.


 
 I'm very suprised by that. That's become considered very bad style by most 
 of the [professional] web dev world quite awhile ago, and for very good 
 reason. Rails-, django- and even ASP.NET-style "pass variables into an HTML 
 template" approaches have proven to be...well...frankly, much less shitty.


AFAIK, Ruby uses imperative erb templates. ASP.NET developers also
slowly move from WebForms mess towards much more structured ASP.NET MVC,
which uses executable code for templates.
Nov 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-09 04:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 11/8/10 4:37 PM, JFD wrote:

 Yes, you're right. One should implement Apache module in D.

 One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.
 I've figure
 that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be
 callable from
 C, so that was easy. Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one
 could build
 it roughly like this:

 Let DMD build a .a library:
 dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d

 Then convert it to shared library:
 gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a

 Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?

 Then it's all D from there on. Cool!

 Thank you.


 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company
 might be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code
 into a page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to
 implement. Also, D code should be able to call PHP code (which is a bit
 less difficult than it seems because we use HPHP, a PHP to C++ translator).

 Andrei


Can't DMD already compile D code embedded in HTML: 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/html.html ?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 09 2010
next sibling parent reply JFD <jfd nospam.com> writes:
 Can't DMD already compile D code embedded in HTML:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/html.html ?


I tried the sample at the link, but got error.  I also tried it without the HTML
code inside.  Am I missing something?

$ dmd hello.html
Error: module hello html source files is deprecated hello.html

hello.html:

--------------
<html>
  <body>
    <code>
import std.stdio;

int main()
{
    writefln("Hello world");
    return 0;
}
    </code>
  </body>
</html>
--------------

-or-

--------------
import std.stdio;

int main()
{
    writefln("Hello world");
    return 0;
}
--------------
Nov 09 2010
parent Robert Clipsham <robert octarineparrot.com> writes:
On 09/11/10 14:24, JFD wrote:

 Can't DMD already compile D code embedded in HTML:
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/html.html ?


 I tried the sample at the link, but got error.  I also tried it without the
HTML
 code inside.  Am I missing something?

 $ dmd hello.html
 Error: module hello html source files is deprecated hello.html

 hello.html:

 --------------
 <html>
    <body>
      <code>
 import std.stdio;

 int main()
 {
      writefln("Hello world");
      return 0;
 }
      </code>
    </body>
 </html>
 --------------

 -or-

 --------------
 import std.stdio;

 int main()
 {
      writefln("Hello world");
      return 0;
 }
 --------------


Which version of dmd are you using? That code is for D 1.0/Phobos. 
You'll need to replace writefln with writeln for D2.

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
Nov 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jacob Carlborg" <doob me.com> wrote in message 
news:ibbjmv$e8p$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 2010-11-09 04:21, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 On 11/8/10 4:37 PM, JFD wrote:

 Yes, you're right. One should implement Apache module in D.

 One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.
 I've figure
 that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be
 callable from
 C, so that was easy. Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one
 could build
 it roughly like this:

 Let DMD build a .a library:
 dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d

 Then convert it to shared library:
 gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a

 Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?

 Then it's all D from there on. Cool!

 Thank you.


 People at Facebook told me that the adoption of D inside the company
 might be helped if they could simply write <?d ... ?> to insert D code
 into a page. I'm not sure how difficult such a plugin would be to
 implement. Also, D code should be able to call PHP code (which is a bit
 less difficult than it seems because we use HPHP, a PHP to C++ 
 translator).

 Andrei


 Can't DMD already compile D code embedded in HTML: 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/html.html ?


I seem to remember hearing that was being depricated. And it was never 
anything like what Andrei's describing. IIRC, all it did was completely 
ignore all the HTML stuff (ie, treat it like comments). It didn't send it to 
Stdout or anything.
Nov 09 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 I seem to remember hearing that was being depricated. And it was never 
 anything like what Andrei's describing. IIRC, all it did was completely 
 ignore all the HTML stuff (ie, treat it like comments). It didn't send it to 
 Stdout or anything.



Right. It was not a good idea.
Nov 09 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
JFD wrote:

 Yes, you're right.  One should implement Apache module in D.
 
 One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.  I've
figure
 that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be callable
from
 C, so that was easy.  Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one could
build
 it roughly like this:
 
 Let DMD build a .a library:
 dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d
 
 Then convert it to shared library:
 gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a
 
 Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?
 
 Then it's all D from there on.  Cool!
 
 Thank you.



One way to make it work is to take a page from how rdmd works. Write the plugin 
in C, have it simply feed its arguments to the dmd compiler, execute, then 
collect the output of the executable.
Nov 09 2010
prev sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2010-11-09 01:37, JFD wrote:

 Yes, you're right.  One should implement Apache module in D.

 One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.  I've
figure
 that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be callable
from
 C, so that was easy.  Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one could
build
 it roughly like this:

 Let DMD build a .a library:
 dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d

 Then convert it to shared library:
 gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a

 Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?

 Then it's all D from there on.  Cool!

 Thank you.


Dynamic libraries doesn't work currently with DMD on Linux. They do work 
with DMD using Tango on Mac OS X where DMD also can build dynamic 
libraries directly (with the -dylib flag).

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Nov 09 2010
parent JFD <jfd nospam.com> writes:
== Quote from Jacob Carlborg (doob me.com)'s article

 On 2010-11-09 01:37, JFD wrote:

 Yes, you're right.  One should implement Apache module in D.

 One thing is that Apache module entry point expects a "C" function.  I've
figure
 that that one could just add extern(C) in front of D function to be callable
from
 C, so that was easy.  Also, Apache expects .so shared library, and one could
build
 it roughly like this:

 Let DMD build a .a library:
 dmd -fPIC -lib libhello.d

 Then convert it to shared library:
 gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libhello.so.0 -o libhello.so.0.0 libhello.a

 Could DMD build .so shared library directly (did I miss something)?

 Then it's all D from there on.  Cool!

 Thank you.


 Dynamic libraries doesn't work currently with DMD on Linux. They do work
 with DMD using Tango on Mac OS X where DMD also can build dynamic
 libraries directly (with the -dylib flag).


I did some tests, here's the result: Apache module (.so shared library) written
in
C is working fine when linked with D shared library built by GDC (4.3.4), as
something like this:

gdc -fPIC -c libfoo.d -o libfoo.o
gdc -shared -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so.0 \
  -o libfoo.so.0.0 libfoo.o -lc

It looks like one could potentially also write the Apache module entirely in D,
too, after matching some data types, but I haven't tried it yet.

Too cool!  Someone could start writing Apache module for D language web
applications anytime... :)

I can call  GDC-built D shared library from C executable or C shared library
without problem.  And it's working with phobos.

It appears that DMD currently cannot create shared library on Linux, as you
said.
 It can however create static library (.a) as above.  C executable program is
working fine with it.  But C shared library that calls D static library gets
stack
error when the shared library is loaded.
Nov 10 2010
prev sibling parent reply Radu <rr foo.bar> writes:
On 11/8/2010 11:45 PM, JFD wrote:

 A potential "mod_d" Apache module would go a long way to promote D language to
 the web application world.

 But it seems that implementing a "mod_d" Apache module may require that C
 instantiates a D language interpreter (similar to Py_NewInterpreter() for
 Python), or do the functionality of RDMD with compiled code caching, but in C.
   Is that possible?  (Presumably it might be possible to hack up a solution,
 but could there be an officially supported way?)

 I know that FastCGI with RDMD can do something similar, but a "mod_d" should
 have higher system performance and scalability.

 Thank you.  D is the best!  Keep up the good work.


My experience with Wt ( http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt ) was quite nice.

Mind that its more than a simple template system and brings quite a few 
advanced idioms to the table like signal/slots, components, adaptive 
degradation for rendering ( uses Ajax and server push were available ).


They also have a nice set of ports for Java and Ruby, maybe D would fit 
nicely among them.

/Radu
Nov 10 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Radu" <rr foo.bar> wrote in message news:ibe95h$gld$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/8/2010 11:45 PM, JFD wrote:

 A potential "mod_d" Apache module would go a long way to promote D 
 language to
 the web application world.

 But it seems that implementing a "mod_d" Apache module may require that C
 instantiates a D language interpreter (similar to Py_NewInterpreter() for
 Python), or do the functionality of RDMD with compiled code caching, but 
 in C.
   Is that possible?  (Presumably it might be possible to hack up a 
 solution,
 but could there be an officially supported way?)

 I know that FastCGI with RDMD can do something similar, but a "mod_d" 
 should
 have higher system performance and scalability.

 Thank you.  D is the best!  Keep up the good work.


 My experience with Wt ( http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt ) was quite nice.

 Mind that its more than a simple template system and brings quite a few 
 advanced idioms to the table like signal/slots, components, adaptive 
 degradation for rendering ( uses Ajax and server push were available ).


 They also have a nice set of ports for Java and Ruby, maybe D would fit 
 nicely among them.


Very interesting. Reminds me of ASP.NET in that it tries to work at 
"stateful widget" level, except (from a brief glance at the homepage) it 
looks like it may actually pull it off and be something I could actually 
trust. I'm definitely going to dig further into that.
Nov 10 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:ibev09$1vf5$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Radu" <rr foo.bar> wrote in message news:ibe95h$gld$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/8/2010 11:45 PM, JFD wrote:

 A potential "mod_d" Apache module would go a long way to promote D 
 language to
 the web application world.

 But it seems that implementing a "mod_d" Apache module may require that 
 C
 instantiates a D language interpreter (similar to Py_NewInterpreter() 
 for
 Python), or do the functionality of RDMD with compiled code caching, but 
 in C.
   Is that possible?  (Presumably it might be possible to hack up a 
 solution,
 but could there be an officially supported way?)

 I know that FastCGI with RDMD can do something similar, but a "mod_d" 
 should
 have higher system performance and scalability.

 Thank you.  D is the best!  Keep up the good work.


 My experience with Wt ( http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt ) was quite nice.

 Mind that its more than a simple template system and brings quite a few 
 advanced idioms to the table like signal/slots, components, adaptive 
 degradation for rendering ( uses Ajax and server push were available ).


 They also have a nice set of ports for Java and Ruby, maybe D would fit 
 nicely among them.


 Very interesting. Reminds me of ASP.NET in that it tries to work at 
 "stateful widget" level, except (from a brief glance at the homepage) it 
 looks like it may actually pull it off and be something I could actually 
 trust. I'm definitely going to dig further into that.


Hmm, I see it's GPL, though. Maybe it's unwarranted, but GPL makes me 
*really* nervous.
Nov 10 2010
parent Radu <rr foo.bar> writes:
On 11/10/2010 10:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky"<a a.a>  wrote in message
 news:ibev09$1vf5$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Radu"<rr foo.bar>  wrote in message news:ibe95h$gld$1 digitalmars.com...

 On 11/8/2010 11:45 PM, JFD wrote:

 A potential "mod_d" Apache module would go a long way to promote D
 language to
 the web application world.

 But it seems that implementing a "mod_d" Apache module may require that
 C
 instantiates a D language interpreter (similar to Py_NewInterpreter()
 for
 Python), or do the functionality of RDMD with compiled code caching, but
 in C.
    Is that possible?  (Presumably it might be possible to hack up a
 solution,
 but could there be an officially supported way?)

 I know that FastCGI with RDMD can do something similar, but a "mod_d"
 should
 have higher system performance and scalability.

 Thank you.  D is the best!  Keep up the good work.


 My experience with Wt ( http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt ) was quite nice.

 Mind that its more than a simple template system and brings quite a few
 advanced idioms to the table like signal/slots, components, adaptive
 degradation for rendering ( uses Ajax and server push were available ).


 They also have a nice set of ports for Java and Ruby, maybe D would fit
 nicely among them.


 Very interesting. Reminds me of ASP.NET in that it tries to work at
 "stateful widget" level, except (from a brief glance at the homepage) it
 looks like it may actually pull it off and be something I could actually
 trust. I'm definitely going to dig further into that.


 Hmm, I see it's GPL, though. Maybe it's unwarranted, but GPL makes me
 *really* nervous.


This wasn't a show stopper for me, but I can see your point. There are 
quite a few of nice things engineered in that framework and usually 
delivers what it claims.

If license is an issue a similar D framework can mimic those nice traits 
Wt has.

/Radu
Nov 10 2010