On 1/18/12 9:55 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Jason Grout
<jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
On 1/18/12 8:42 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:38 PM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ivan Andrus<darthand...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 18, 2012, at 11:23 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jason Grout
<jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote:
On 1/18/12 4:05 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
In the recent thread about running the singlecell server on port 80,
William hinted that aleph is supposed to be that. But I can't get it
do
do anything but throw HTTP-500 internal server errors. Since I am
once
again at an institution that blocks ports != 80 on wifi it would be
helpful if there were a way to connect to the single cell server. Do
I
need some magic sauce to connect to aleph or what is going on?
A long time ago, aleph was the pre-cursor to the singlecell, but it is
no
longer running, and William hasn't redirected it to the singlecell
yet.
I have now:
http://aleph.sagemath.org/
is now the same as sagemath.org:5467
Unless we're not planning to keep it around, I'm going to use
http://aleph.sagemath.org/ for the iPhone app since I've had problems with
the firewall on campus.
I'm happy to keep aleph.sagemath.org pointed at the single cell server
indefinitely.
I just did a little test of http://aleph.sagemath.org. I made this
interact in aleph and also in sagenb.org:
@interact
def f(n=(1..10)):
print n*n
With aleph, I can easily count to 4 from when I let go of the slider
until the number updates. With sagenb.org, I can't even count to 1.
I.e., sagenb.org is *dramatically* faster at interacts than
aleph.sagenb.org, at least in this one test. I've never though of
interacts on sagenb.org as "fast" before.
Jason, care to comment? Do other people see the same behavior?
We could adjust the polling intervals. There are several polls going on
which are introducing delays:
1. The worker manager polling the database for new input (.1 seconds)
2. The worker manager polling the worker for output (.1 seconds; actually,
this is batched with (1) above).
3. The web browser polling the database for output (.4 seconds, I believe).
Ideally, we'd have one seamless client<---(websocket/zmq)---->worker
connection with no polling. That's how things are done in the ipython
notebook. We put the database and polling in the middle for scalability.
Thanks,
But the Sage notebook is doing all kinds of stupid polling and still
seems way, way faster to me than the single cell server. Maybe the .4
second browser pulling is to blame, though I'm seeing more than .8
seconds total. I'm looking forward to hearing back from somebody
else closer than Singapore about the comparison in times.
When I tried the above and hit "shift-enter" with the cursor not at
the very end, the shift-enter went through and mangled the text, but
the evaluation still happens. I.e., if I put the cursor after "f", I
end up with:
def f
(n=(1..10)):
print n*n
I think you have to call some codemirror2 api function to undo the
last thing (or something), but you're forgetting to do that.
Yes, I've noticed that too. I think we're not canceling the enter.
In fact, the new codemirror just introduced a new way of dealing with
keybindings. We haven't integrated the new codemirror into the
singlecell yet.
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
