On Aug 23, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Dave Everitt wrote:
For me, the philosophy is to keep it as simple as absolutely possible.
I'm an eternal newbie, really keen to maintain a way for 'the rest of us' to
have a web framework that:
1. doesn't give you cognitive overload and file bloat,
On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
I am new to the world of Camping. It looks very simple. I have two issues:
- What types of applications is Camping more suitable than Rails.
Where you want something small and easy.
Or you like knowing exactly what
it! I'll certainly be linking to it
from my blog.
Camping-list mailing list
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 15:43 +0100, Magnus Holm wrote:
Okay, boys and girls: Let's get ready for the release!
When it comes to bug tracking, I really like ditz
(http://ditz.rubyforge.org) + sheila (written in Camping;
example: http://masanjin.net:9000/). What do you think?
Sounds great! I
On Jan 24, 2009, at 7:24, zimbatm zimb...@oree.ch wrote:
I prefer using method_missing, with string access for fallback when
key names are not compatible with ruby method names.
And I prefer symbols, but it's a total edge case to me. Strings are
great too, and it'd bug me less
, we need to clear up the rdoc and write howtos for camping with
fastcgi, passenger, and other web servers. I don't know, what do
most people deploy camping on?
Proxied to Mongrel and using FastCGI, both.
I intend to use swiftiply at some point.
On May 23, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Brendan Taylor wrote:
You missed PUT :)
I can imagine situations where you'd want to be able to use more
esoteric HTTP methods (like OPTIONS, or any of WebDAV's many extension
methods). I don't have a better solution though, and this may be Good
On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 22:43 -0500, _why wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:25:08AM +0200, Magnus Holm wrote:
* The cookie session is named Camping::Session and is placed in
camping/session.rb. Maybe this should be called Camping::CookieSession or???
You know, these cookie sessions seem like
Splendid! If we can say Camping, the 3K Microframework, then I
think we will really have a reason to bump the big number. I'll wait
for a reaction from zimbatm, but I am euphoric about these changes.
Oh, that's wonderful! I really like it!
On May 4, 2008, at 10:14 PM, John Beppu wrote:
This is an informal poll.
If you are primarily a Ruby programmer,
- What was your primary language before you started coding in Ruby?
- What's your current programming language of choice?
Perl, PHP, ObjectiveC, depending on task.
On Jan 12, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
2008/1/10, Jeremy McAnally [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm not sure who Camping's steward is at this point(zimbatm? _why?),
but I haven't seen much activity in quite some time. I really like
Camping, and I understand open source projects can fall by
On Mar 12, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
what do you think of releasing the current trunk as camping-1.6 ?
Nothing much has moved since a while and apart from FastCGI, I believe
most bugs where ironed out.
After the gem release, I propose putting some effort on
On Feb 25, 2008, at 2:21 PM, Albert Ng wrote:
I'll keep that in mind.
As an aside, using this gem, how would I go about changing the user
without closing the browser or raising «Unauthorized»? That last
pops up a log-in window that can't authorize (have to press escape).
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 20:07 -0500, Jeremy McAnally wrote:
Hmm yes the direct FastCGI support could be supplanted by making sure
we have a solid and tested Rack adapter. That way they still get the
FastCGI support but we don't have to maintain all the evil parts of
I'll look through
On Oct 5, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Evan Weaver wrote:
Sure, and maybe it doesn't really need to be process-persistent.
Wouldn't that limit you to non-load-balanced apps, since you could
only have one simultaneous process if you want session consistency?
Can always make it easy and
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 22:50 +0200, Jonas Pfenniger wrote:
2007/9/28, Nathaniel Talbott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As far as I can tell, sending an actual HTTP PUT request to a Camping
app will never parse the params out of the request body - or am I
No you aren't at all. Actually,
Mail list logo