httpd library and missed opportunity.

Andre Garzia andre at andregarzia.com
Tue Aug 1 18:18:42 EDT 2017


Alex,

Python is kinda tricky to bundle. If you're looking into writing an
extension, then these might be useful:

* Libmicrohttpd - from GNU project, embedable httpd in C:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libmicrohttpd/

Implementing httpd is not hard, it could be done quite easily.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> [ started a new thread, so I can't rant without tainting the other thread ]
>
> I started out on the 'find a rev/livecode solution for a simple HTTP
> server" for one small reason :
>
>    the LC 9.0 Dictionary Guide, under "HTML5 Deployment" says
>
> Testing your HTML5 app with a local web server
>> Some browsers, such as Google Chrome, do not permit pages to download
>> resources from file:// URLs. You won't be able to test your application in
>> these browsers unless you run a local HTTP server.
>>
>> A quick and easy way to run a simple local HTTP server is to use Python.
>> Open a terminal window, change directory to your standalone's directory,
>> and run:
>>
>> python -m SimpleHTTPServer 8080
>> This will let you access your standalone by opening your web browser and
>> visiting http://localhost:8080.
>>
>> What ?  IMO, this is just plain "wrong".
>
> This is like going into the BMW dealership and being told "Yeah, you'll
> love the way the new Z4 drives. Just get into this Mercedes sports car here
> and we'll take you over to the racetrack to watch someone else drive one."
>
> Why are we suggesting that users use another (OK, a "competing") scripting
> language to test HTML5 deployment ?
>
> Livecode is perfectly able to run a simple HTTP server. It is perfectly
> possible and not too hard to write a basic one. In fact, we now even have
> an included library that makes it trivial to write that very basic server.
>
> Why didn't we (i.e. Livecode - a careful use of the word  "we") just
> package up that simple server, and then include that, with suitable
> instructions.
>
> That would have avoided any implication that LC is any less capable than
> other scripting languages, and avoided reminding anyone that LC doesn't
> (yet) come packaged with all the libraries and therefore utilities that you
> could hope for.
>
>
> So - I'm hoping to write a basic version (including my "get around the
> same-domain limitation") and get it, or something like it, included in the
> LC distribution, so that the documentation has no need to recommend another
> language.
>
> <end of rant - thanks for listening :-)>
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>



-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com -- All We Do Is Code.
http://fon.nu -- minimalist url shortening service.



More information about the Use-livecode mailing list