When they ask, what is this written in?

[Kee Nethery]

An Apache mod_Rev module that could optionally break into the  
graphical interface for debugging would be amazingly useful. The  
existing "engine" that does not have all the functionality of standard  
Rev is not worth the hassle (IMHO).

What I want is an Apache module that runs a stack or set of stacks  
with plugins and all the trimmings. Essentially, I'd like to have a  
RunRev app that acts like Apache (think Andre's HTTP stack) that  
allows me to step through the scripts. This would be single threaded  
and it would display the stack screens.

Then, I want the exact same stacks to run under Apache. If  
mod_Revolution has 20 sessions that stay up, I'd want essentially 20  
copies of the stacks running in separate sandboxes. Because I do want  
a way to communicate between them, I'd want a new type of global  
(threadglobal ?) that is common to all the sessions.

I'd drop Python and move to this kind of setup in a heartbeat. I'm not  
holding my breath.

Kee

On Nov 30, 2008, at 3:46 PM, viktoras didziulis wrote:

> One could also look at Revolution as a C++ development framework.  
> Depends on where you are looking from.. I guess you know a story  
> about an elephant and six blind men :-)
>
> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>> Making the new Apache module engine available for free will help  
>> tremendously in evangelizing the language, arguably more so than  
>> the browser plugin.  It's hard to beat the grace of chunk  
>> expressions for working with text, and whether HTML or JavaScript  
>> or CSS, most of the web is just text.
> modRevolution, modRev or am I missing something? It would be a hit.  
> Is it already available anywhere, or is it only in future plans of  
> the Rev. Ltd?
>
>> Short of going open source, what might one do to better communicate  
>> the value of investing thousands of programmer hours in Rev?
>>
>> Certainly the free Apache module will help, and a truly  
>> comprehensive list of both commercial products and add-on  
>> components would also be quite a boost.
>>
>> What else could be done to make Rev as compelling for serious  
>> developers as open source languages?
>>
> Diversity of available choices, including free or open source  
> product line, benefits many makers of development tools. An engine  
> and Apache module might be distributed for free while IDE and  
> deployment tools could remain proprietary. This approach is  
> exploited by well known companies like Adobe, Borland or smaller  
> ones like AdaCore, ActiveState, and many others...
>
> As time passes by and once consumer is aware (in our times he really  
> is...) about all the top-popular development tools being at least  
> free, open source or under "artistic licences" at the engine/ 
> compiler/interpreter level, "proprietaryness" of  Rev. may become a  
> real obstacle. Most developers and content providers are already  
> used to free availability of many engines. These tools are becoming  
> an air of the Internet, they ensure constant creation of new  
> content, and most people can not accept an idea of  any air fee or  
> air tax or air property, but are willing to pay for "blowers",  
> "steroids", or anything that allows them to move more of their air  
> from point A to point B in a more efficient way. In principle they  
> want a free possibility to create and deploy using their 'favorite  
> text editors' and command line tools, and would likely pay for an  
> IDE that would efficiently free them from their 'favorite text  
> editors' :-).
>
> my 1 cnt
> Viktoras
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution




-------------------------------------------------
I check email roughly 2 to 3 times per business day.
Kagi main office: +1 (510) 550-1336