Guys, will you take this bickering about Java definitions off-list,
please? We've got work to do ;-).

Servlets are another potentially useful idea gone bad in the Java
world. It's a technology, not a concept. It's not our technology, and
the last time I looked at it it was sucking technology, so let's not
transplant these words.

To me, the concept is called a service. You have a service in your
image that can spit out something a browser understands? Call it a
web-enabled service for my part :-).

Now, to go back to the original question:
" I want to do what java calls servlet, in other words I want an
application executing on the server and is displayed in the webbrowser
and be able to read and write to files."

That is possible with any of the web frameworks in Squeak:
- Seaside for complex user interaction;
- SmallWiki for content-management apps;
- Swiki if you happen to like the architecture;
- Comanche if you want to serve external files and of course to plug
all three above together;
- ...

Seaside seems to have the most clout at the moment. SmallWiki is being
rewritten to Seaside, so at the end of the day it won't be an
exclusive-or.

Original poster: if you could give a more specific example of what you
want to do, we can give more specific advice. You'll also prevent
James and Blake bitching at each other ;-)

On 10/7/05, Blake <blake at kingdomrpg.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:54:39 -0700, James Robertson <jarober at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Using the VW framework, you can define a servlet endpoint in an html
> > page in the same way you would for a Java servlet.
>
> There are lots of ways to do this, yes. Delphi has at least six ways to do
> it, I believe.
>
> > What's the difference?  The image fires up a new instance instead of
> > loading (and caching) from disk.  So what?
>
> What's the point in distinguishing between "server" and "servlet"? I would
> consider a server to be a standalone application that has a loose or no
> connection with a web-server, while a servlet can't exist without one.
>
> If that definition offends you, feel free to not use it.
>
>