From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Nov 28 11:48:23 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA29188
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:48:23 -0800
Received: from netcom22.netcom.com (bakul@netcom22.netcom.com [192.100.81.136])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA29183
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:48:22 -0800
Received: from localhost by netcom22.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
	id LAA09621; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:46:39 -0800
Message-Id: <199511281946.LAA09621@netcom22.netcom.com>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the install and on Red Hat Linux. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Nov 95 16:34:41 PST."
             <853.817518881@time.cdrom.com> 
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 95 11:46:38 -0800
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@netcom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Instead of going for a full httpd and CGI interface, you implement a
> library that allows pretty much any event driven application to "grow
> an HTTP port".  You write your "forms" in a higher level pastiche of
> HTML and some sort of imbeded tags that let you specify which callback
> routines to call when a given HTML object is manipulated in some way.

Bingo!  That is exactly it!

> The viewer would see HTML, your legacy app would see a different sort
> of command interpreter.

Yup!

> Would you be interested in exploring an option like that, as well as
> the option of using existing server technology and CGI?

Sure.  Let us take this offline though.