Well, the main one is that is in the group of continuation based
frameworks, like other advanced web frameworks such are seaside (smalltalk)
ocsigen (ocaml) or coccoon (JavaScript) . That means that it is not based
on the event model, and the flow is in a single procedure. This makes the
navigation much more readable, as a console application. But WASH is not
continuation based, but log based, and the log was stored in the client,
that means that it was also restful to a certain level. That approach
solved the big problems of memory usage and serialization of continuation
based frameworks.
It also solved the problem of form safety before the development of
formlets and the widespread of applicative functors.
But I do not pretend to resucitate WASH. I just miss a continuation of this
line of work , but this was not the case.
I took a deeper look at WASH after developping MFlow, years after the
discontinuation of WASH. MFlow coincidentally, is log based in a different
way. I supposed that it was based on continuations, and I didn't like them,
but it was not. If the project would have been prosecuted, who knows...It
had a edge over other web developments in other languages, but it was hard
to understand, just because the approach was original and unique.
I consider MFlow as a continuation of WASH in "philosophical" terms.
2013/5/6 Tom Ellis
On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 10:46:23PM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
The case of WASH is a pity. Architecturally It was more advanced that many recent haskell web frameworks. The package would have been a success with little changes in the DSL syntax.
Could you briefly summarise the difference between WASH's approach and that of the more recent frameworks?
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-- Alberto.