george.moschovitis at gmail.com
Sun Feb 4 05:22:07 EST 2007
Nitro is about Web stuff. However I still think that uri is the correct term
(in fact url is deprectated)
On 2/4/07, Alexandre Gravem <vikingtux at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Nitro should stay limited to Web stuff ... maybe it could be
> extended to some ponctual non-web job but it is essentially a web framework.
> On 2/3/07, Jonathan Buch <john at oxyliquit.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > > Is Nitro limited to Web stuff? Could I not have URIs with my own
> > > protocol (e.g., jgb://some-stuff ) and teach Nitro to Do The Right
> > > Thing when it sees it?
> > >
> > > I think I tend to think of Web apps (or apps in general) as "fetch
> > this
> > > resource, do something with it, and pass it on." Often it involves
> > > http:// , but not always.
> > yes, I do think that Nitro is limited to Web stuff. At least at the
> > moment. I'm not sure how hard it would be to write a 'adapter' like the
> > CGI one, just for another type of 'getting called'. I don't think
> > it would be particularily hard, but all the "mechanisms" within Nitro
> > are of course quite 'web centered'.
> > Somebody might prove me horribly wrong when I say this. :)
> > Anyone have an idea of a protocol which would fit into the Nitro 'range'
> > of working with things? I'd really be interested to hear one. :D
> > (Nitro, going general purpose!)
> > Jo
> > --
> > Feel the love
> > http://pinkjuice.com/pics/ruby.png
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nitro-general mailing list
> > Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/nitro-general
> Nitro-general mailing list
> Nitro-general at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Nitro-general