[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Spiffy Question: handle-not-found

From: Taylor Venable
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Spiffy Question: handle-not-found
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:33:48 -0500

On Sun, 2010-02-14 at 18:17 +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:39:18AM -0500, Taylor Venable wrote:
> > The Spiffy documentation says about the value of handle-not-found: "It
> > is a procedure of one argument, the path (a string) that was requested."
> > However, it seems that the actual argument is the path, up until the
> > first component which was not found. If root-path does not exist, path
> > is always "/". If root-path does exist, but neither "foo" nor "asdf"
> > exist within it, then path is always "/foo" or "/asdf". That's what it
> > seems to be, anyway; is that the correct behaviour?
> If nobody objects, I could change the handler to pass the remaining path
> to (handle-not-found) as a second argument.  Unfortunately this would be
> a backwards-incompatible change, though.  This would be a list of
> remaining path components.

No need to make a breaking change on my account, I've got what I need by
using intarweb and uri-common.  I just noticed an incongruity between my
understanding of the doc and the actual behavior, trying to figure out
which one was "right."

> Recently there have been a few new eggs created for dispatching URIs.
> You might find those interesting:
>  (or more generally )
> and a more generic web framework was created as well:
> If you prefer simplicity, you could also use Andrew Wright's pattern
> matcher on the uri-path:

Sweet, these look useful.  Fortunately my app is pretty simple right
now, but if it gets more complicated these will definitely help.

Thanks for the insight.

Taylor Venable

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]