Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
Yup -- seems like it's worth keeping the Win32/Win64 port going. It does muck up the code a bit with ifdef's and there are a few weirdnesses with Windows to work around but I suppose enough effort has been done in the past (if not recently) that it wouldn't be too tough to maintain. -Jim On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: Hi Jim, Once again I'll take ]project-open[ as example. Please look in here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/project-open/files/project-open/V3.5/ How big is the Windows Installer (which installs on both Windows 64 and Windows 32 systems)? How big is the VMware Image? Well in some companies/organizations (believe it or not) Linux is not an accepted platform. Even a VMware appliance with Linux on it won't be accepted because to maintain it the company is obliged to acquire personnel knowledgeable on the system. So if you want to spread the users base of your OpenACS/Aolserver based application, having it running also on Windows may be very helpful. Cheers, Maurizio -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: 03 August 2011 21:21 To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver Hi, As Dossy mentioned, we spent some time trying to support the win32 port. That included a goofy Tcl-based config thing (which also helped to verify a workable Tcl installation) and a dose of ifdef's and compatibility code. In general, the AOLserver code base is decidedly Unix -- any Win32 specific stuff is made to make Win32 look like Unix (i.e., the thread library, directly reading emulations, etc). I could take a look again but suspect it will take me a day or more just to the muck of Win32 development working again on my Mac. Given the quality of the various virtualization stuff (VMware, Virtual Box, etc.), would it be smarter to just double down on Unix and spend some time with some bundled Unix-in-box for Windows type installs? -Jim On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Dossy Shiobara wrote: I speak only for myself ... I personally have thoughtfully cared for the Windows support in AOLserver -- once upon a time, I had built the Windows binaries that some folks were using. Through discussions I had with Jim Davidson, the new build mechanism for AOLserver 4.5.x was meant to make building AOLserver on Windows easier than it had been in the past. I suspect that any recent changes to AOLserver which cause it to no longer build cleanly on Windows is likely an act of ignorance (i.e., not knowing what will or won't work on Windows) than an act of malice (i.e., not caring about Windows). My guess is that the folks who contribute changes do not have the means to test their changes on a Windows platform. It would be fantastic if the people who use AOLserver on Windows could port the changes such that they also work on Windows, either by replacing changes with more portable code, or providing the necessary platform-specific implementation surrounded by #ifdef __WIN32__ as needed, etc. On 8/3/11 1:19 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: By looking at the code I have the feeling that the interest in supporting Windows is fading down. [...] Any opinion? -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
If that is ok, I am willing to take the burden to look at / look after these weirdnesses... Ciao, Maurizio -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: 05 August 2011 18:05 To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver Yup -- seems like it's worth keeping the Win32/Win64 port going. It does muck up the code a bit with ifdef's and there are a few weirdnesses with Windows to work around but I suppose enough effort has been done in the past (if not recently) that it wouldn't be too tough to maintain. -Jim On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: Hi Jim, Once again I'll take ]project-open[ as example. Please look in here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/project-open/files/project-open/V3.5/ How big is the Windows Installer (which installs on both Windows 64 and Windows 32 systems)? How big is the VMware Image? Well in some companies/organizations (believe it or not) Linux is not an accepted platform. Even a VMware appliance with Linux on it won't be accepted because to maintain it the company is obliged to acquire personnel knowledgeable on the system. So if you want to spread the users base of your OpenACS/Aolserver based application, having it running also on Windows may be very helpful. Cheers, Maurizio -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: 03 August 2011 21:21 To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver Hi, As Dossy mentioned, we spent some time trying to support the win32 port. That included a goofy Tcl-based config thing (which also helped to verify a workable Tcl installation) and a dose of ifdef's and compatibility code. In general, the AOLserver code base is decidedly Unix -- any Win32 specific stuff is made to make Win32 look like Unix (i.e., the thread library, directly reading emulations, etc). I could take a look again but suspect it will take me a day or more just to the muck of Win32 development working again on my Mac. Given the quality of the various virtualization stuff (VMware, Virtual Box, etc.), would it be smarter to just double down on Unix and spend some time with some bundled Unix-in-box for Windows type installs? -Jim On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Dossy Shiobara wrote: I speak only for myself ... I personally have thoughtfully cared for the Windows support in AOLserver -- once upon a time, I had built the Windows binaries that some folks were using. Through discussions I had with Jim Davidson, the new build mechanism for AOLserver 4.5.x was meant to make building AOLserver on Windows easier than it had been in the past. I suspect that any recent changes to AOLserver which cause it to no longer build cleanly on Windows is likely an act of ignorance (i.e., not knowing what will or won't work on Windows) than an act of malice (i.e., not caring about Windows). My guess is that the folks who contribute changes do not have the means to test their changes on a Windows platform. It would be fantastic if the people who use AOLserver on Windows could port the changes such that they also work on Windows, either by replacing changes with more portable code, or providing the necessary platform-specific implementation surrounded by #ifdef __WIN32__ as needed, etc. On 8/3/11 1:19 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: By looking at the code I have the feeling that the interest in supporting Windows is fading down. [...] Any opinion? -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
Maurizio Martignano wrote: Well… ehm... the version in the tar ball compiles and runs well under Windows… Not so for the version under CVS HEAD: many of the changes introduced have been implemented with a careful eye only for *nix, and not for Windows. By looking at the code I have the feeling that the interest in supporting Windows is fading down… Speaking only for myself... Keeping the windows port current is valuable, both to support more users, and to force proper coding practices. The problem isn't so much lack of interest as lack of capability. I am a unix developer, and I don't have the time or money (looks like $500 for Visual Studio) to set up a proper windows development environment. That said, it's possible that many of the compilation problems are quite simple to address when faced with the error messages, provided the build is simple to set up. To have things in perspective… please go to the ]project-open[ web site, go to the download section and see how many people have downloaded the Windows version and how many have downloaded any of the other version… I'm curious, but I didn't see anywhere to view these numbers - do you have a direct link? I’m not a big organization, I cannot influence you, but I have to say I am very sorry and sad for this… evolution…. Being so small I don’t have the energy to look at all your changes and additions and make sure they work properly on Windows. If this trend continues I will be forced to generate a sort of fork and incorporate, add the new changes, the new additions to my code base on a case by case basis, driven by the actual needs. AFAIK AOL abandoned all support of AOLserver several years ago, so there's no big organization involved; your voice is as loud as any other. -J Any opinion? Thanks in advance, Maurizio -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
I speak only for myself ... I personally have thoughtfully cared for the Windows support in AOLserver -- once upon a time, I had built the Windows binaries that some folks were using. Through discussions I had with Jim Davidson, the new build mechanism for AOLserver 4.5.x was meant to make building AOLserver on Windows easier than it had been in the past. I suspect that any recent changes to AOLserver which cause it to no longer build cleanly on Windows is likely an act of ignorance (i.e., not knowing what will or won't work on Windows) than an act of malice (i.e., not caring about Windows). My guess is that the folks who contribute changes do not have the means to test their changes on a Windows platform. It would be fantastic if the people who use AOLserver on Windows could port the changes such that they also work on Windows, either by replacing changes with more portable code, or providing the necessary platform-specific implementation surrounded by #ifdef __WIN32__ as needed, etc. On 8/3/11 1:19 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: By looking at the code I have the feeling that the interest in supporting Windows is fading down… [...] Any opinion? -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
Hello all, Some few clarifications, I am afraid I wasn't clear. The compilation in itself was rather simple and went almost ok. The issue was in the behavior in the testing Some of the code, eg, function calls to the networking parts and so on, are working in the tar ball version, but cause the system to hang forever in CVS HEAD version. For the time being, I need to make a delivery rather quickly, I added Brian and Gustaf mods about the upload of large objects to the version in the tar ball, leaving all the other changes out. I might have a look at the other changes, but this is first of all a testing and debugging activity, very time consuming... I will come back to the community when I find something For Jeff, here you can see the numbers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/project-open/files/project-open/V3.5/ Ciao, Maurizio -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
Hi, As Dossy mentioned, we spent some time trying to support the win32 port. That included a goofy Tcl-based config thing (which also helped to verify a workable Tcl installation) and a dose of ifdef's and compatibility code. In general, the AOLserver code base is decidedly Unix -- any Win32 specific stuff is made to make Win32 look like Unix (i.e., the thread library, directly reading emulations, etc). I could take a look again but suspect it will take me a day or more just to the muck of Win32 development working again on my Mac. Given the quality of the various virtualization stuff (VMware, Virtual Box, etc.), would it be smarter to just double down on Unix and spend some time with some bundled Unix-in-box for Windows type installs? -Jim On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Dossy Shiobara wrote: I speak only for myself ... I personally have thoughtfully cared for the Windows support in AOLserver -- once upon a time, I had built the Windows binaries that some folks were using. Through discussions I had with Jim Davidson, the new build mechanism for AOLserver 4.5.x was meant to make building AOLserver on Windows easier than it had been in the past. I suspect that any recent changes to AOLserver which cause it to no longer build cleanly on Windows is likely an act of ignorance (i.e., not knowing what will or won't work on Windows) than an act of malice (i.e., not caring about Windows). My guess is that the folks who contribute changes do not have the means to test their changes on a Windows platform. It would be fantastic if the people who use AOLserver on Windows could port the changes such that they also work on Windows, either by replacing changes with more portable code, or providing the necessary platform-specific implementation surrounded by #ifdef __WIN32__ as needed, etc. On 8/3/11 1:19 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: By looking at the code I have the feeling that the interest in supporting Windows is fading down… [...] Any opinion? -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver
Hi Jim, Once again I'll take ]project-open[ as example. Please look in here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/project-open/files/project-open/V3.5/ How big is the Windows Installer (which installs on both Windows 64 and Windows 32 systems)? How big is the VMware Image? Well in some companies/organizations (believe it or not) Linux is not an accepted platform. Even a VMware appliance with Linux on it won't be accepted because to maintain it the company is obliged to acquire personnel knowledgeable on the system. So if you want to spread the users base of your OpenACS/Aolserver based application, having it running also on Windows may be very helpful. Cheers, Maurizio -Original Message- From: AOLserver Discussion [mailto:AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM] On Behalf Of Jim Davidson Sent: 03 August 2011 21:21 To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] Progress in Aolserver Hi, As Dossy mentioned, we spent some time trying to support the win32 port. That included a goofy Tcl-based config thing (which also helped to verify a workable Tcl installation) and a dose of ifdef's and compatibility code. In general, the AOLserver code base is decidedly Unix -- any Win32 specific stuff is made to make Win32 look like Unix (i.e., the thread library, directly reading emulations, etc). I could take a look again but suspect it will take me a day or more just to the muck of Win32 development working again on my Mac. Given the quality of the various virtualization stuff (VMware, Virtual Box, etc.), would it be smarter to just double down on Unix and spend some time with some bundled Unix-in-box for Windows type installs? -Jim On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Dossy Shiobara wrote: I speak only for myself ... I personally have thoughtfully cared for the Windows support in AOLserver -- once upon a time, I had built the Windows binaries that some folks were using. Through discussions I had with Jim Davidson, the new build mechanism for AOLserver 4.5.x was meant to make building AOLserver on Windows easier than it had been in the past. I suspect that any recent changes to AOLserver which cause it to no longer build cleanly on Windows is likely an act of ignorance (i.e., not knowing what will or won't work on Windows) than an act of malice (i.e., not caring about Windows). My guess is that the folks who contribute changes do not have the means to test their changes on a Windows platform. It would be fantastic if the people who use AOLserver on Windows could port the changes such that they also work on Windows, either by replacing changes with more portable code, or providing the necessary platform-specific implementation surrounded by #ifdef __WIN32__ as needed, etc. On 8/3/11 1:19 PM, Maurizio Martignano wrote: By looking at the code I have the feeling that the interest in supporting Windows is fading down. [...] Any opinion? -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank. -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to lists...@listserv.aol.com with the body of SIGNOFF AOLSERVER in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
