***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for hosting it
on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?

ASP is the obvious one, but I'm hoping to shift it away from IIS and
Windows, hopefully to Apache and open source.

ASP compatibility is not an issue -- there's a lot of
application-specific JavaScript code here, but nothing with a major
dependency on ASP. Chillisoft is trying harder than I need to be ASP
and it costs a fortune.


Thanks for any suggestions

Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:

> ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
> quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for hosting it
> on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?

jscript !=== javascript

>
> ASP is the obvious one, but I'm hoping to shift it away from IIS and
> Windows, hopefully to Apache and open source.
>
> ASP compatibility is not an issue

even so: jscript !=== javascript

> -- there's a lot of
> application-specific JavaScript code here, but nothing with a major
> dependency on ASP. Chillisoft is trying harder than I need to be ASP
> and it costs a fortune.


--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Evertjan. wrote:

> Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> > ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
> > quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for hosting it
> > on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?
>
> jscript !=== javascript

Who cares? I certainly don't.

This stuff was written as JScript, because it was written for ASP,
although it doesn't use any COM components other than the filesystem.
Now I need to find a home for it, which I ***ume will require some
minor porting at least. Now any sort of server-side ECMAScript platform
is going to need a "request" and a "response" object, but precisely how
I need to use these is going to be the least of my porting worries.

Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:

>
> Evertjan. wrote:
>
>> Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>
>> > ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
>> > quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for
>> > hosting it on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?
>>
>> jscript !=== javascript
>
> Who cares? I certainly don't.

What an impolite answer to a serious warning.

Code written exclusively in Jscript can include many functions that
are not ECMA-javascript compatible.

> This stuff was written as JScript, because it was written for ASP,
> although it doesn't use any COM components other than the filesystem.
> Now I need to find a home for it, which I ***ume will require some
> minor porting at least. Now any sort of server-side ECMAScript
> platform is going to need a "request" and a "response" object, but
> precisely how I need to use these is going to be the least of my
> porting worries.

It must feel good that you know the amount of worry ahead of any knowledge
of the platform you want to choose, especially since you do not want any
warning of the consequences.

I would reconcider porting 5 year old code onto a new platform,
the porting and the update requirement costs in man hours could well
outweigh the savings of not using IIS.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Evertjan. wrote:

> What an impolite answer to a serious warning.

I'm afraid I saw it less as "a serious warning" and more as the
pervasive Usenet tendency (particularly rife in c.l.j) to use any
question as an opportunity to display one's knowledge of anything, no
matter how irrelevant, rather than to add something useful. When
someone posts a question using both the terms "JavaScript" and
"JScript", it's a reasonable bet that they're already aware of the
difference.

I presume your lack of suggestions for any alternative platforms is
because you don't know of any, not necessarily because they don't exist.

Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Evertjan. wrote:
>
>> What an impolite answer to a serious warning.
>
> I'm afraid I saw it less as "a serious warning" and more as the
> pervasive Usenet tendency (particularly rife in c.l.j) to use any
> question as an opportunity to display one's knowledge of anything,

So, you insult people on a surmize?

> no matter how irrelevant,

My warning being irrelevant?
Perhaps to you, but not to your posting.

> rather than to add something useful. When
> someone posts a question using both the terms "JavaScript" and
> "JScript", it's a reasonable bet that they're already aware of the
> difference.

No, it is not, I don't surmize your ability, but give a polite warning.

> I presume your lack of suggestions for any alternative platforms is
> because you don't know of any, not necessarily because they don't exist.

I was not answering that question.

However unuseful you might think my warning is, usenet is not about having
the right on getting only specified replies, especially if the replies are
on topic.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

Andy Dingley wrote:
> ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
> quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for hosting it
> on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?
>
> ASP is the obvious one, but I'm hoping to shift it away from IIS and
> Windows, hopefully to Apache and open source.

MS continues cl***ic ASP support for IIS. I am not sure it is that easy
to port an ASP application to some other platform.

One approach at using Spidermonkey, the JavaScript egine used in
Mozilla, on the server is <http://www.whitebeam.org/>
But I haven't used it at all and while the description claims that the
server side "page" is XML the examples at
<http://www.whitebeam.org/library/guide/overview/phpasp.rhtm>
are not even well-formed (e.g. <head><title>Hello World</title></Head>).


--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

Andy Dingley wrote:

> ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
> quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for hosting it
> on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?

http://mod-gcj.sourceforge.net/rhinola.html

It's based on the "mod_gcj" Java module for Apache, with Mozilla's "Rhino"
engine (one of The Mozilla Project's many, many Javascript engines) thrown
in, which compiles Javascript to Java on the fly.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Toby Inkster wrote:

> > ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
> > quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for hosting it
> > on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?
>
> http://mod-gcj.sourceforge.net/rhinola.html

That looks like just the job, thanks.

Now p*** the mince pies and I'll get started...

Evertjan. wrote:

> Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
> >
> > Evertjan. wrote:
> >
> >> Andy Dingley wrote on 19 dec 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:
> >>
> >> > ***uming a large pile of legacy server-side JavaScript (reasonable
> >> > quality ASP JScript from 2001-2002) what are the options for
> >> > hosting it on some server-side platform that runs JavaScript ?
> >>
> >> jscript !=== javascript
> >
> > Who cares? I certainly don't.
>
> What an impolite answer to a serious warning.
>
> Code written exclusively in Jscript can include many functions that
> are not ECMA-javascript compatible.
>
> > This stuff was written as JScript, because it was written for ASP,
> > although it doesn't use any COM components other than the filesystem.
> > Now I need to find a home for it, which I ***ume will require some
> > minor porting at least. Now any sort of server-side ECMAScript
> > platform is going to need a "request" and a "response" object, but
> > precisely how I need to use these is going to be the least of my
> > porting worries.
>
> It must feel good that you know the amount of worry ahead of any knowledge
> of the platform you want to choose, especially since you do not want any
> warning of the consequences.
>
> I would reconcider porting 5 year old code onto a new platform,
> the porting and the update requirement costs in man hours could well
> outweigh the savings of not using IIS.

You really don't want me to smack you with this .net C# bible. It's
very heavy. There's nothing wrong with IIS.