Re: I'm starting using chicken4 (Re: [Chicken-users] 4.6.1 performance boost

[Daishi Kato]

At Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:36:32 +0200,
Peter Bex wrote:
> > I was heavily using the http egg in chicken3, which is
> > incompatible with chicken4.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is.  I like to think it's an improvement though :)

Yeah, I see that. It's clean.

> > In chicken3/http-server, I did something like:
> > (http:request-method-handler 'GET (lambda (req) ...
> > This is converted like the following in chicken4/spiffy.
> > (define (my-request-handler)
> >   (let* ([req (current-request)]
> >          [method (request-method req)])
> >     (case method
> >       ((GET) (lambda (req) ...)
> >       ((POST) (lambda (req) ...)
> > (vhost-map `((".*" .
> >               ,(lambda (continue)
> >                  (my-request-handler)))))
> 
> Yes, this is uglier.  There are several different request handling
> eggs now though!  They make it easier to handle incoming requests.

Is it that ugly?
None of the request handling eggs in the spiffy manual
was not so low level.

> Porting the old-style request handling stuff shouldn't be too hard,
> but I left it out because the way the old code worked is incompatible
> with vhost support.  The new Spiffy has vhost support built in from
> day 1.  Felix isn't happy about this change either, so you would
> probably make him very happy by making an egg that emulates the old
> API :)

I don't understand the discussion here. How felix isn't happy?
I thought the vhost support is very powerful.
(But, at the first look, I did't know how I could emulate
 low-level request handler.)

> > There were many tiny things for porting my code, such as dealing
> > with the fancy uri-common egg and string-match -> string-search.
> 
> Are you using "fancy" in a good way or in a bad way?  I'm really eager
> to hear how these new http libraries are being used and how people like
> them, so I can improve where things are not as smooth as they should be.

Good question. I used "fancy" in a good way, but if you ask me:
it might be too premitive, or there are too many procedures to understand.
My code was (since it was from chicken3) based on the string-based
representation of URLs, hence I made some util functions as follows:

(define (get-path-from-uri uri)
  (define len (- (string-length prefix) 1))
  (let ([path (string-intersperse (cdr (uri-path uri)) "/")])
    (and path
         (string-prefix? prefix path)
         (string-drop path len))))

(define (get-ref-url-from uri)
  (let ([baseuri (uri-reference (sprintf "~a://~a:~a/" (uri-scheme uri) 
(uri-host uri) (uri-port uri)))])
    (uri->string (uri-relative-from uri baseuri))))

(define (get-query-from-uri uri)
  (let ([query (uri-query uri)])
    (and (pair? query)
         (map (lambda (x) (cons (symbol->string (car x)) (cdr x)))
              query))))

Please let me know if there's a better way of doing it.

> > Anyway it's nice to have it working, and
> > I would like thank everyone contributing to chicken4!
> 
> And I would like to thank you for switching and giving feedback!

You are welcome.

Best,
Daishi