<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Jay, On 9/23/2014 10:03 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:CAJYbDak29o47-yU5ONQy3DH+V+2DVCzT8UWqtaZNMsHAdb=JdA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The command-line tool is basically deprecated and only provided for backwards compatibility. There is a huge amount that it can't do at all and it hasn't been the primary way that we recommend using the Web server for a very long time.</pre> </blockquote> I'm not using the plt-web-server app - I created a minimal application that set up the environment: directories, ports, etc. and a start function that just returns a 404 if called. My server sits behind Apache and only handles servlets, which I would like to be demand load modules so they can be added to and updated easily. That's why I am interested in being able to unload servlets on command, though not necessarily all of them at once (although that also is helpful). <blockquote cite="mid:CAJYbDak29o47-yU5ONQy3DH+V+2DVCzT8UWqtaZNMsHAdb=JdA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">> Not really knowing much about Racket's internals he naively asks: > Could a server pre-load the commonly used webserver modules and make > them available to new module servlets, or does the custodian > implementation make doing that difficult/impossible? This is the purpose of the make-servlet-namespace argument of configuration-table->web-config@ but there is no option in the configuration file for that argument. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server-internal/Web_Servers.html?q=servlet-namespace#%28def._web-config._%28%28lib._web-server%2Fweb-config-unit..rkt%29._configuration-table-%7E3eweb-config%7E40%29%29">http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server-internal/Web_Servers.html?q=servlet-namespace#%28def._web-config._%28%28lib._web-server%2Fweb-config-unit..rkt%29._configuration-table-~3eweb-config~40%29%29</a></pre> </blockquote> The namespace facility seems designed more for user written modules than for library modules. My analysis may be off-base as I have very little experience working directly with custodians, but it seems that when a dynamic servlet is first loaded, its custodian spends a lot of additional time (re)loading library modules that already exist in other custodians. [ Though I can't tell exactly what's happening, I can see a lot of disk activity when I think I'm loading a 5KB servlet. ] Reasonably I would have expected that after loading/linking the first servlet, the libraries common to the servlets would be already in memory. But loading additional servlets is no quicker [ and causes a similar disk hit ] so clearly I don't understand what is happening internally with the custodians. If a Racket library is deliberately put into the servlet-namespace, does that streamline linking? <blockquote cite="mid:CAJYbDak29o47-yU5ONQy3DH+V+2DVCzT8UWqtaZNMsHAdb=JdA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">> My application so far is based on stateful servlets and AJAX ... stateful > mainly because it's easier for me to understand. Currently there is > little use of continuations, but some planned functionality will use them > extensively and it certainly would help if debugging didn't always mean > starting over setting up conditions in the application. This comment/question is related to questions 4 and 5 from the FAQ: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server/faq.html?q=servlet-namespace#%28part._update-servlets%29">http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server/faq.html?q=servlet-namespace#%28part._update-servlets%29</a> </pre> </blockquote> That link leads to a "troubleshooting" page 8-). I didn't consider the issue to be a "problem" per se - I already knew that restarting a stateful servlet would lose saved state. Most of my existing servlets are one-shots that don't save any state, but they are written using the stateful language. Only a few use continuations and not extensively (so far). I was just thinking ahead to stuff that will need to use continuations more extensively. Thanks for putting up with my questions. George </body> </html>