Re: [Wikitech-l] identifier collisions
* Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org [Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:36:43 +1000]: I think if you spent half as much time reading the PHP manual as posting clueless questions to this list, you would know that neither of the first two options can work. Namespaces because even if we did use them, the different versions would necessarily be in the same namespace, and threads because PHP does not have them (despite appearances to the contrary noted by Dmitriy Sintsov). Sorry but I never noted that PHP has built-in support for threading. I've just pointed out that it's not thread-safe at the system level (system threads, used by Apache threading MPM). Languages like Python or Java have their own threading management. http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/en/new_features_2_0.html On Unix systems with POSIX threads support, Apache can now run in a hybrid multiprocess, multithreaded mode. This improves scalability for many, but not all configurations. Dmitriy ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
[Wikitech-l] How Google specifies image licenses
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/08/simple-way-to-specify-image-licenses.html I see we do a couple of other methods, but not *this* one. Does our stuff show up properly in the Google CC searches, or would we need to do this too? - d. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] identifier collisions
--- On Fri, 8/14/09, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: And please, spare us from your rant about how terrible this is. It's not PHP's fault that you don't know anything about it. I'm sorry my questions make you angry. I don't recall ranting about PHP. Actually, I kind of like it. Lack of thread safety is an implementation problem not a problem with the language. But, let's not dwell on your rant about my stupidity. Let's do something positive. You are an expert on the MW software and presumably PHP, Apache and MySQL. If you find it ridiculous that a newbie is driving the discussion about MW QA (I certainly do), pick up the ball and run with it. How would you fix the parser so all disabled tests in parserTests run? How would you build a test harness so developers can write unit tests for their bug fixes, feature additions and extensions? How would you integrate these unit tests into a good set of regression tests? How would you divide up the work so a set of developers can complete it in a reasonable amount of time? How do you propose achieving consensus on all of this? On the other hand, maybe you would rather code than think strategically. Fine. Commit yourself to fixing the parser so all of the disabled tests run and also all or most of the pages on Wikipedia do not break and I will shut up about the CPRT. Commit yourself to creating a test harness that other developers can use to write unit tests and I will gladly stop writing emails about it. Commit yourself to develop the software the organizes the unit tests into a product regression test that developers can easily run and I will no longer bother you about MW QA. My objective is a MW regression test suite that provides evidence that any extensions I write do not break the product. Once that objective is achieved, I will no longer infect your ears with dumb questions. Dan ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] SSL certificates for Wikimedia sites
Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote: Most browsers (and RSS readers and ...) will bark at it as (potentially) unsafe. Therefore, IMHO Wikimedia should either use established CA's certificates or publish informa- tion on the private (or CAcert) certificates on a trust- worthy server, in paper publications, etc. where it can be used to verify the certificates. I know what happens when self-signed certificate is used. Why the heck is that an issue with wikitech.wikimedia.org wiki? Because when you access URI:https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/, it will bark :-). Would not all references to wikitech.leuksman.com have been advertizing the HTTPS access (and the Google ratio is still about 55900:209 :-)), I would not care. But IMVHO *if* HTTPS requests are served, that should be done properly. P. S.: Yes, it *is* highly unlikely that wikitech.wikimedia.org's A record gets hijacked and a MITM attack is staged as little could be gained. And then what? I for one use HTTP to access that wiki, feel free to hijack my account, and, um, vandalize. You won't need to do MITM for that, actually, will save you some effort. I thought there're more important issues out there ;-) I can assure you you are *very* right on that thought :-). Tim ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] identifier collisions
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:37 PM, dan nessettdness...@yahoo.com wrote: While my machine was compiling AMP components, I thought about this a little bit. It seems weird that the implementation of a language intended to provide backend functionality for web servers isn't thread safe. Apache and other web server software must be threaded operationally towards infinity. How do they deal with using a non-thread safe library? Each time a thread executes PHP code does it have to grab a lock that protects the whole PHP library? mod_php, CGI, FastCGI, etc. are normally used in a multi-process fashion, rather than multithread. Each instance of PHP uses one process, so they all have independent address spaces and so on. If one crashes it also won't bring down any others, which is convenient in PHP's case, since it's pretty easy to segfault. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] How Google specifies image licenses
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 6:46 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: Is what Google is doing any sort of standard, though? One worth adding? [[RDFa]] is a standard. It isn't one we currently use. It would be possible to use it if we didn't care about validating using any validator I know of. (I believe HTML 5+RDFa has been specified by someone, but it's not part of HTML 5 itself, and HTML 5 validators will reject it.) HTML 5 has its own microdata syntax, but it was very recently invented, it's controversial, I'm not sure anyone supports it, and I'm not sure it's stable. I'm pretty sure link rel=license on the image page should work fine for everyone. It's part of HTML 5 http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/history.html#link-type-license, and I think it predates HTML 5. Note, though, that it's very vague about what exactly the license info applies to. I don't know if anyone would be able to usefully figure out which parts of the page the license applies without special-casing MediaWiki, or worse yet, Wikipedia. There have been proposals to allow more specific license metadata to be supported by HTML 5, but they've been rejected in the past. I'd have to review the discussions to recall exactly why the above wasn't viewed as a good enough use-case. ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
