[web-devel] On the state of Haskell web frameworks

[Jeremy Shaw]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Gregory Collins <greg at gregorycollins.net>wrote:

We need pluggable *applications* (blog, CMS, RSS feed generation,
> administrative panels, forum, wiki, caching, user management, etc) that
> understand how to talk to each other --- expecting "plug and play"
> compatibility between frameworks on this level, when there's no
> consensus on the *primitives*, is a pipe dream. The first framework that
> cracks this particular nut, in a way that makes it easy and pleasurable
> for people to build web apps that perform, is going to gain a lot of
> traction. Code talks.
>
>
I have been working on this in the happstack framework. Specially, the idea
of making possible for you to write a new application by combining several
libraries writing by different authors.

The first issue is that the libraries need to have unique URLS that can not
collide with each other. If two libraries expect to be able to handle, "
http://localhost/submit", that will never fly.

So one aim of URLT was to ensure that when you combined different modules
together, the URLs remained unique.

http://src.seereason.com/~jeremy/SimpleSite1.html

Another issue is that each library has it's own set of state that it needs
to manage. happstack-state is pretty well situated in that regard. The
happstack state is made up of an arbitrary number of state Components. Each
library can have it's own state Components which get added to the global
state.

The next big problem I have run into is user management / security. Each of
the libraries maybe have different requirements regarding permissions, etc.
But I am not clear how much independence they can have from the user
management system. I don't really want to take a one-size-fits-all user
management approach though if I don't have to.

- jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/web-devel/attachments/20100315/e6d52cc6/attachment.html