Drew Crampsie

I think the way HAProxy does ACL's is a more "global" solution. Matching with paths alone and dispatching handlers that way is a can of worms. In other words, we...

How about this extension to make it meta: - Handler specs are a list of *(pattern-or-predicate? . module-or-handle-request) * - Both* predicate?* and *handle-request* are procedures. - Executed in order...

In that case I'll bow out of this. I can do some different patches so I can start using it without a reverse proxy mapping at some point. High Availability...

As long as that module can be *"./dynamic"* with a ttl and not a `:static/compiled` one that can't be reloaded, that totally works. And exactly with the mux, my idea...

Ah yes, handle-request? makes perfect sense and having the list be either modules or (path? . module) can do the composing that Fare is referring to so yup, you've got...

... and if we made a `(current-httpd-match-result)` bound with the truthy value of the predicate, and usually that predicate is a regexp match, then I can call that parameter in...

If parameterization is that expensive then ok, you win... in fact not sure what I was thinking as chances are the request already went through a few regexp predicates so...

Yup. :thumbsup:. That seems to do the trick. Simple configuration, extensible, performant, and request-specific is actually less specific than request-state so the stoner in me loves the juxtaposition. On Wed,...

Yeah makes sense. Perhaps the gxhttp-mux is a subclass and we don't need to change existing? On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 7:10 AM vyzo ***@***.***> wrote: > *vyzo* left...

I think that destructuring a non-list should be an error, not "maybe turn a the tail into an atom we try to splice an atom as the second last pair...