On 2005.02.06, Torben Brosten wrote:
This *is* a suggestion for cooperative development of two versions in
the interests of AOL and the community, perhaps with oversight by a
steering committee if you like.
As documentation develops that answers Andrew Piskorski's (and
others') questions on "core s
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:05:59 -0800, Tom Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 06 February 2005 12:03, Stephen wrote:
>
> > AOLserver doesn't do scatter/gather IO.
> >
> Hmm, well in nssock.c, there is this note:
> * SockProc --
> *
> * Socket driver callback proc. This driver attem
On Monday 07 February 2005 03:42, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
> If we had so many active developers and contributors that a few of us
> could just go off in the weeds and play with "wouldn't it be cool if"
> type of ideas, I'd be the first to suggest this kind of a code-fork or
> branching pattern, to ke
Because it takes precious limited time and effort away from the mainline
codebase.
Other's people time as much precious as mainline developers, that's the
attitude
i am against of: "AOL is the biggest paid contributer and has the right
to define the direction,
others can play with new things at the
Dossy,
Vlad said that "something" is not right. I agree with him and I will not
be vague. But the "something" is not a fault of any person working with
AOLserver. You are not a problem for the AOLserver project, you are an
asset. The "problem" as I see it is not related to individual people, b
On 2005.02.06, Dan Chak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also, the namespace stuff isn't stripping namespace away, but simply
> making the namespace explicit when the proc was defined in one. For
> some reason, _not_doing_this_ breaks code in namespaces. I plucked
> that snippet from OACS's ad_proc
A spec document is a good idea. I can give time toward reviewing it.
/pgw
Bas Scheffers said:
> Dossy Shiobara said:
> > could implement it and show it to us, that might be really helpful.
Or,
> > if someone else wants to try, then collaborate together on it. But,
> Instead of going away and co
So, for a moment, ignore the existance of AOL. What does the rest of
the AOLserver Community think about your patches? I don't mean people
just saying "oh, we think Vlad's patches are great" -- I mean, who else
has written code that needs to run on a version of AOLserver built with
your patches?
On Monday 07 February 2005 16:51, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
> I just gave up participating in SF tracker thing.
Sad.
Well, this is what I said... People go away or do nothing...
We need the "vision" statement.
Zoran
--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/
To Remove yourself from this list, simpl
> On Monday 07 February 2005 16:51, Vlad Seryakov wrote:
> > I just gave up participating in SF tracker thing.
>
> Sad.
>
> Well, this is what I said... People go away or do nothing...
> We need the "vision" statement.
Exactly. As you wrote before: "acceptance or rejection of future ideas".
It wa
I've had my error logs get filled with error messages that look like this:
[14/Jan/2005:17:05:27][30928.5126][-conn:ibr::2] Warning: nsopenssl (ibr): SSL
read interrupted:
Connection reset by peer
This seems to happen when people cancel page requests while using SSL. It seems
to happen fairly
o
On 2005.02.07, Jade Rubick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any comment on this proposed fix? Are you willing to put it or
> something similar into the nsopenssl source?
Either I can make the change and commit, or you can. I'm OK with this
change - pushing the logging to Debug level makes sense. R
We're still missing something, here. This solution does not use the
user-defined proc for procs that may be defined outside the tcl library, like a
helper proc defined within a .tcl page. I'm going to experiment with using
ns_ictl get/save durin the 'oncreate' script, and see if I can use that to
On 2005.02.07, dan chak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're still missing something, here. This solution does not use the
> user-defined proc for procs that may be defined outside the tcl
> library, like a helper proc defined within a .tcl page.
OK, make up your mind. You just got done saying tha
On 2005.02.06, Jim Wilcoxson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we're using ns_shares heavily and so are stuck with TCL 7.x, which is
> no longer supported. (I know there are hacks in TCL 8 for ns_shares,
> but when we benchmarked them, they were much slower. So no compelling
> reason to upgrade, for u
On 2005.02.06, Jim Wilcoxson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe AS CGI is already good enough to compete with Apache mod_perl,
> mod_php, ... I dunno.
I think it already is, but this is a gut feeling. Would someone from
the community volunteer some time and effort into creating a small
benchmark
Quoting Dossy Shiobara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2005.02.07, dan chak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We're still missing something, here. This solution does not use the
> > user-defined proc for procs that may be defined outside the tcl
> > library, like a helper proc defined within a .tcl page.
> Well, since Tcl doesn't have a "clone this interp"
> capability, we kind of "fake it" in AOLserver. We create a
> "master interp" which sources all the Tcl at start-up, then
> dump its contents as best we can (which generally means
> capturing the proc definitions for all procs listed in [info
>
On 2005.02.07, dan chak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I have said from the start that the _only_ time I don't want my
> custom proc used is during the cloning process. So other times
> include the private tcl library and tcl/adp evaluation.
OK, then this should work:
--- 000-redefine-proc.t
Hi - I published the ns_share results, but it was a looong time ago,
like a few years ago when we upgraded from 2.X to 3.X. I found this
quote in my mailbox around November 9, 2002 from the mailing list:
"The test I ran to compare 8x with 7.6x was a 10-line loop, around 400K
iterations, setti
On 2005.02.07, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still do believe that there should be a path/vision established
> which will then justify acceptance or rejection of future ideas or
> ideas already sitting in the RFE queue.
Okay, this is good. So, how do we define the vision? I'm
On 2005.02.07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Other's people time as much precious as mainline developers, that's
> the attitude i am against of: "AOL is the biggest paid contributer and
> has the right to define the direction, others can play with new things
> at their homes"
This i
> Hi - I published the ns_share results, but it was a looong
> time ago, like a few years ago when we upgraded from 2.X to
> 3.X. I found this quote in my mailbox around November 9,
> 2002 from the mailing list:
>
> "The test I ran to compare 8x with 7.6x was a 10-line loop, around 400K
> iter
On 2005.02.07, Greg Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We LOVE AOLserver from at least one point of view: we don't need to
> do anything to it to make it work. It just works.
>
> In all our years of using AOLserver we have made exactly ONE source
> change to the core C code. [...]
So, this rais
I think it's worthwhile to say how a feature benefits you for either:
* How it fits into a real world application
* How it makes development of said application (or in general) better/easier
My reason for this is that there are several peices of introspection
that wouldn't be used for an app, but
On Monday 07 February 2005 22:13, you wrote:
> Okay, this is good. So, how do we define the vision? I'm in favor of
> it being a shared vision between all the constituents of the AOLserver
> Community, which was my rationale behind the Steering Committee concept.
> Individuals from the community
This is the last time I'm going to say this: AOL (rightly) controls the
work that its employees perform. AOL does not restrict what you do with
AOLserver, what changes you make to it, etc. I am now the gatekeeper
for what contributions (from AOL, and outside of AOL) go into the core.
I don't beli
On 2005.02.07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] if you have to implement something not simple or different as AS
> module, AOLServer architecture does not allow you to do this without
> changing the core.
Huh? As we continue to refactor the core, separating out the Tcl
interps/con
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:37:54 -0500, Dossy Shiobara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2005.02.07, Greg Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We LOVE AOLserver from at least one point of view: we don't need to
> > do anything to it to make it work. It just works.
> >
> > In all our years of using AOLse
On 2005.02.07, Bernd Eidenschink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It was very very sad, e.g. that it took years to incorporate one of
> the different approaches for encodings/charsets that have been around
> (from aD and others), or that lengthy discussions (e.g. the "Support
> for non-HTTP protocols
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:13:53 -0500, Dossy Shiobara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, this is good. So, how do we define the vision? I'm in favor of
> it being a shared vision between all the constituents of the AOLserver
> Community, which was my rationale behind the Steering Committee concept.
>
On 2005.02.07, Jim Wilcoxson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi - I published the ns_share results, but it was a looong time ago,
> like a few years ago when we upgraded from 2.X to 3.X. I found this
> quote in my mailbox around November 9, 2002 from the mailing list:
Cool, thanks.
> Here is a copy
See comments below:
Vlad Seryakov wrote on 2/7/2005, 4:39 PM:
> But you should state this on your Web site, so other people know that
> AOLserver
> is AOL's software product, just sources are available to public in
> mostly read-only
> or copy-and-change mode.
I thought a goodly number of pe
On 2005.02.07, Robert Seeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's worthwhile to say how a feature benefits you for either:
> * How it fits into a real world application
> * How it makes development of said application (or in general)
> better/easier
>
> My reason for this is that there are sev
On 2005.02.07, Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Disclaimer: I work with Greg on the project described above.)
Cool! Hello! Nice to meet you. :-)
> In my experience, this behavior is the norm for corporate use of open
> source, regardless of the particular open source project under
> d
Hey All
Having an issue with nsencrypt. The module has loaded properly from what I
can tell, but I'm getting the following error in my test script. Any idea what I
might be missing?
Thanks,
Brooks
[07/Feb/2005:17:21:13][3168.10][-conn:server1::1] Error: invalid command
name "ns_encrypt"
On 2005.02.08, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To be clear about this, I am not simply going to collate everyone's
> > responses together. I will be looking for common themes amongst all
> > the responses so that the most people benefit from the improvements
> > that we make in 200
Hi Jeff - thanks, I didn't know that top-level stuff wasn't compiled.
I might give the benchmark another try this weekend, when I have some
time to setup an 8.X server on a test machine.
Jim
> I would *not* expect this code to gain any speed. The main mantra
> of Tcl programming for performance
Dossy Shiobara wrote:
The danger here is that you're not only testing the performance of
AOLserver's [ns_share], but you're also introducing Tcl's file encoding
overhead as you're doing [gets] within the test.
A lot of Tcl's encoding overhead can be nullified simply with:
fconfigure $fid -tr
Adam Turoff wrote:
On 2005.02.07, Greg Wolff wrote:
We LOVE AOLserver from at least one point of view: we don't need to
do anything to it to make it work. It just works.
In all our years of using AOLserver we have made exactly ONE source
change to the core C code. [...]
(Disclaimer: I work with
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 17:22 -0500, Brooks Robertson wrote:
> Having an issue with nsencrypt. The module has loaded properly from
> what I can tell, but I'm getting the following error in my test
> script. Any idea what I might be missing?
The error message indicates that it is not loaded. Did you
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:18:06PM -0500, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
> I just want to draw the clear distinction between real and imagined
> problems. I'm all about solving real problems, and not very interested
> in solving all of the many imagined problems that could exist.
Imagined? Please Dossy,
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 04:37:54PM -0500, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
> Is BNA an exceptional case? Or, do most users of AOLserver share a
> similar experience? Are the folks who are asking for changes in the
> core in the majority or minority?
>
> I think the answers to these questions ar
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:20:31PM -0500, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
> That's been my experience as well. I'm trying to understand and
> rationalize the existance of a small but vocal minority that keeps
> asking for features that appear, at the surface, to have very limited
> utility to those outside
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 04:25:46PM -0500, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
> Do you think that the only way to get people to use your code is to
> have it included in the core AOLserver source distribution? If yes,
> why? If no, then why do you keep bringing this up as an issue?
Dossy, PLEASE. You SAW th
45 matches
Mail list logo
