On 09/26/2012 12:28 PM, Jeff Rogers wrote: > Ayan George wrote: > >> Can we: >> >> * Allow c99 language features. > > This might impact platform support, or that might be a non-issue. Any > specifics on what you're looking for?
IIRC, newer versions of GCC default to gnu99 as the language standard which allows for stuff like inline variable declaration and declarations in for loops that can make for clearer and more concise code. But also I want this in part because sticking to an older standard gives AOLserver a 'legacy' feel. As I understand it, we're quite a small project now which gives us more freedom to abandon some of the cruft (old standards, unfavorable platforms and operating systems, outdated coding idioms, etc.) I've tested this myself and tcl and aolserver build and run just fine with -std=c99 or -std=gnu99 flags. > >> * Fully support HTTP 1.1 > > I thought about this but without digging in I couldn't recall which > pieces are missing (other than chunked encoding). > Okay -- I'm not very familiar with what HTTP 1.1 bits are missing. Perhaps assessing what is necessary to make it 1.1 compliant should be part of the effort. >> * Support configuring multiple servers using namespaces in the >> configuration file? > > Sounds interesting, can you be more specific? Maybe create a sample > config file showing what you'd like to work. > Sorry -- this wasn't a very well thought out item. I've always wondered why the configuration file used Ns_Set()s and I thought that we could use regular TCL variables with namespaces to confine the scope of configuration items to a server instance. This seems cleaner and might make more sense for people who know TCL. >> As far as development goes, can we move to git as the main way to >> maintain code and adopt more modern ways of submitting patches? > > This is a tough one. Dossy created a github project a year or two ago, > but it hasn't seen a lot of use. The development center is currently on > sourceforge, and migrating a project is a big effort not to be taken > lightly. Some of us are also old farts and not very skilled with git > and/or turned off by the intense debates over its merits. > I think much of the work is already done. It is just a matter of pushing changes to github. Github has some really nice features like making tarballs out of tags. I highly recommend that we consider moving development to github. > My current feeling on this is that there are not enough active > developers right now to make cvs really problematic. An influx of > interest and contributors would change this, but I'd prefer to defer the > big job of repository changing until it looks more necessary. > Okay -- fair enough. I've just found using git and the common git workflow to be really nice compared with CVS or SVN. I know this can become a huge debate. I think which SCM tools are used can be a factor when developers pick projects to contribute to and I think CVS will hinder us in this regard. -ayan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How fast is your code? 3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production. Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;13503038;z? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html _______________________________________________ aolserver-talk mailing list aolserver-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aolserver-talk
