Re: Kawa Servlets and Kawa libraries generally

[brlewis at alum dot mit dot edu]

"Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk> writes:

> *Scheme JSP*
> I'm wondering whether a Scheme/JSP environment is worthwhile (since
> JSP requires that some Java is still visible) or whether to adopt
> something more like BRL (you can find out more about that on the
> archives to this list).

For the very latest on BRL, check out the new project page:

    http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=3321

Under the "File Releases" heading, download "tar/gz" to get the latest
sources and manual.

> My inclination is that a SSP is worthwhile but only in a way that is
> utterly simple, I would like to be able to provide a repl for SSP
> pages, making tags self evaluating scheme objects. This would result
> in a really nice implementation.

Been there, done that.  "Utterly simple" with a repl was what I did
with BRL 1 using MIT Scheme.  The problem with this level of
simplicity was compiler unfriendliness.  I didn't even attempt any
kind of compilation, and this was noticeable in system performance.

What I've done with BRL 2 using Kawa is make things much easier for
the compiler with little additional burden to the user.  It still
"feels" like a repl, but the read/eval part is done only once.  It's
nice that Kawa's compiler interface is simply eval (or load).

> An SSP would be usefull since it would mean I could ship a completly
> free GNU-Paperclips using Kaffe as the VM and with Kawa as a scripting
> engine (there is a GNU-JSP but it requires a Java compiler - Kawa
> doesn't).

You could do it today with BRL.  Building, installing, and basic use
are easy and documented.  I will continue to work on documentation for
advanced features, including the JDBC interface, as I need it to train
my coworkers.  I'm using BRL for the most sophisticated web
applications I've done yet.

Note that although I'm using the package name gnu.brl, BRL has not yet
been officially adopted by the GNU project, though I can think of
several reasons why it should be:

	- BRL uses automake/autoconf and adheres to other GNU standards
	- Web application development is an emerging field; GNU shouldn't
	  wait long to set a standard in this area
	- Scheme is the extension language of choice for GNU
	- BRL syntax is newbie-friendly (see the manual)
	- BRL is fast (thanks to Kawa)
	- BRL already has a motivated (monetary and otherwise) developer

--
Bruce R. Lewis                  <URL:http://web.mit.edu/brlewis/www/>