16:54:43 <stepkut> donri: not sure I answered you already -- but, yes -- something a bit like Happy. Except I want to be able to copy and paste in the BNF directly from the HTTP spec and use that as part of the verification process
16:57:15 <donri> hm i thought happy let you work directly with an original bnf grammar
16:57:47 <stepkut> donri: I dunno, I have only skimmed the manual
16:58:24 <stepkut> donri: I will reread it again when I have time to work on hyperdrive
16:58:36 <stepkut> at the moment I am trying to figure out how to deal with https in happstack-authenticate
16:58:46 <stepkut> which is mostly not hard
16:58:50 <donri> stepkut: are you gonna release the static version of plugins-auto?
16:59:06 <donri> wait you're not the maintainer are you
16:59:14 <stepkut> donri: nope, not the maintainer :)
16:59:31 <stepkut> I maintain plugins and happstack-plugins.. but not the thing in the middle
16:59:38 <donri> heh
16:59:48 <stepkut> though I am likely to shift to web-plugins anyway instead of plugins-auto+happstack-plugins
16:59:50 <donri> get your patches upstream then! :)
17:00:09 <donri> i want to use it for non-web stuff
17:00:30 <stepkut> yeah.. web-plugins is only barely web specific
17:00:36 <stepkut> I have been thinking about removing that as well
17:00:41 <stepkut> so that it is entirely not web specific
17:01:15 <stepkut> the next stuff is to add the features that allow it to automatically fetch, build, install, cabal packages and load symbols from the newly installed library
17:01:21 <stepkut> clearly that would be cool for lots of things, not just web
17:01:43 <donri> yea
17:01:49 <stepkut> web-plugins-dynamic can already load stuff on the fly.. but you have to give it the location of an already compiled .o file
17:02:03 <stepkut> so.. it proves that the magic part works.. but it is not very useful yet :)
17:02:25 <donri> but right now i just want a faster devel cycle, which means plugins-auto, but i don't want dynamic loading in "production"/user installs
17:02:44 <stepkut> right
17:02:50 <stepkut> I need that stuff for clckwrks as well
17:02:57 <donri> you mentioned you have patches to add a static noop module to plugins-auto, but those are not on hackage
17:03:03 <stepkut> so that users can edit the theme in the browser and have it auto-reload
17:03:48 <stepkut> one moment
17:15:38 <stepkut> donri: sent you what I had
17:19:47 <mm_freak> stepkut: should happstack 8 be downwards-compatible?
17:23:30 <donri> mm_freak: as little as possible!
17:25:36 <mm_freak> donri: the framework i have in mind is nowhere near compatible to happstack 7
17:25:49 <donri> mm_freak: good!
17:26:16 <mm_freak> the question is whether happstack should keep the legacy of web frameworking or try something completely new =)
17:26:41 <donri> i like completely new, depending on what that is exactly
17:26:57 <donri> the plan has always been to throw out back compat in 8
17:28:00 <mm_freak> donri: the problem is that all happstack applications would have to be rewritten
17:28:05 <donri> but, for example, i'm not convinced your "webwire" would be a good candidate for happstack, simply because http isn't really reactive per se
17:28:19 <mm_freak> no, nothing reactive
17:28:23 <mm_freak> but also nothing stateless
17:28:28 <donri> :)
17:28:52 <mm_freak> the highest level type will be a Category, and below it you will find a number of monads and arrows
17:30:09 <donri> sounds good to me, but i don't know how far stepkut wants to take the lack of back-compat... or what the hackage2 guys will think ;)
17:30:23 <mm_freak> that's the problem
17:30:37 <mm_freak> otherwise i might write my own framework =)
17:30:55 <donri> is no compatibility layer possible then?
17:31:06 <mm_freak> well, yes, it's possible
17:31:32 <donri> doesn't have to be perfect, only make porting easier
17:31:55 <mm_freak> it has to be perfect, because it has to be a natural transformation
17:32:07 <mm_freak> you can't port in parts…  it's an all-or-nothing deal
20:36:13 <stepcut> mm_freak: backwards compatibility is not the most important thing.. we don't have to keep doing things wrong forever, just because we used to :)
20:41:07 <donri> stepcut: so what about hackage2? port it to happstack 8? maintain happstack 7? make an effort to make porting to happstack 8 easy?
21:57:26 <donri> stepkut: so i guess we should also port it to fsnotify
21:59:01 <stepkut> donri: is that the new os independent thing?
21:59:13 <donri> yea
21:59:17 <stepkut> then, yes :)