On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 17:35 +, Benjamin Otte wrote:
pros:
- current proxy handling in GNOME is a huge mess, we're all lucky we can live
without proxies
- the API looks extremely sane
- there is nothing else that does proxying
- Dan (who is going to be the main - or only? - user of it)
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:21 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 17:35 +, Benjamin Otte wrote:
pros:
- current proxy handling in GNOME is a huge mess, we're all lucky we can
live
without proxies
- the API looks extremely sane
- there is nothing else that does
2008-10-24 klockan 11:40 skrev Emmanuele Bassi:
but humour me: where would you put this functionality? and saying
libgnome or gtk+ is not going to cut it.
libsoup perhaps?
— Wouter
--
:wq mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/10/24 Xavier Bestel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- yet another library, slowing applications startup.
Actually, I've been thinking about this problem lately. Why don't
people use dlopen() more often? If you use a library in your app which
is not intrinsically essential to it (like gtk+ is) why are
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 12:04 +0200, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote:
2008-10-24 klockan 11:40 skrev Emmanuele Bassi:
but humour me: where would you put this functionality? and saying
libgnome or gtk+ is not going to cut it.
libsoup perhaps?
er...
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:09 +0100, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
In this specific library case, since the API is so simple and you
don't know you need it until you somehow check your app's settings
it's a no-brainer really.
You could lazy-load the library when you need to access a URL, but the
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 11:09 +0100, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote:
2008/10/24 Xavier Bestel [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- yet another library, slowing applications startup.
Actually, I've been thinking about this problem lately. Why don't
people use dlopen() more often? If you use a library in your app
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Patryk Zawadzki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Bastien Nocera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 17:02 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
A point Patryk touched is that generic distributions will provide
Apache packages
Juan Jesús Ojeda Croissier wrote:
And what about Cherokee?
http://www.cherokee-project.com
It's small, modular, very light and easy to run as a user in specific
port (to avoid bother system web servers, for example)
http://www.cherokee-project.com/doc/bundle_cherokee-worker.html
Sure,
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008, à 14:38 +0200, Frederic Peters a écrit :
Bastien already wrote about Fedora policy, httpd is disabled by
default. I know that Debian policy is to consider that the user
installing a server wants it to be started. From what I read of
Patryk, PLD Linux also starts
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008, à 14:38 +0200, Frederic Peters a écrit :
Bastien already wrote about Fedora policy, httpd is disabled by
default. I know that Debian policy is to consider that the user
installing a server wants it to be started. From what I read of
Patryk,
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 18:22 +0200, Murray Cumming a écrit :
Yeah, I have the same problem with Glom's dependency on PostgreSQL.
Debian/Ubuntu users get an unused PostgreSQL instance even when Glom
isn't running, just because its Debian policy to run any services that
are installed, with
On Solaris, apache daemon is disabled by default aswell.
Matt
Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008, à 14:38 +0200, Frederic Peters a écrit :
Bastien already wrote about Fedora policy, httpd is disabled by
default. I know that Debian policy is to consider that the user
installing a
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 17:02 +0200, Frederic Peters a écrit :
A point Patryk touched is that generic distributions will provide
Apache packages configured to run at startup, so it is not just a
matter of binary size.
What do distributors think?
I think we could split the web server
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 16:41 +0100, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
I doubt our server guys will get overly happy over the idea of
disabling a typical server daemon just so you can integrate it with
GNOME. I don't really think I want the server team to hate the GNOME
team any more.
Why is
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 15:11 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 18:22 +0200, Murray Cumming a écrit :
Yeah, I have the same problem with Glom's dependency on PostgreSQL.
Debian/Ubuntu users get an unused PostgreSQL instance even when Glom
isn't running, just because
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 17:58 +0200, Murray Cumming a écrit :
SQLLite can't do what PostgreSQL can do, which is why PostgresSQL
exists. For instance:
- Multi-user and the relevant locking.
- Access control.
- Network access.
As these are not things necessary for a UI generator, I
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 18:07 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 17:58 +0200, Murray Cumming a écrit :
SQLLite can't do what PostgreSQL can do, which is why PostgresSQL
exists. For instance:
- Multi-user and the relevant locking.
- Access control.
- Network
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 15:16 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I also think that Apache is a bad choice. If you need a good web server
with DAV support, please think of lighttpd instead, or - much better -
of a libsoup-based implementation.
There's also security issues to consider.
One good
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:19:54PM +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Whoa? There is no Debian package simply because no one had stepped up so
far. Christophe Sauthier is starting to work on it, and I will help him
to get the necessary changes in postgresql.
Thanks.
BTW, I talked to one of the
Em Qui, 2008-10-23 às 14:53 +0100, Bastien Nocera escreveu:
Heya,
I'd be interested in getting gnome-user-share into GNOME 2.26.
But one of the main shorter term goals is to get the desktop sharing
feature of vino integrated into gnome-user-share.
On Fri, 24.10.08 20:14, Josselin Mouette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 12:53 -0400, David Zeuthen a écrit :
As I said, it's clear to me that Apache does meet our goals here. If you
want to propose something else, the burden is on you to provide evidence
that what
Isn't that what nfs does? Or for that matter, ftp? I don't understand
why a web server is needed for sharing files.
2008/10/23, Bastien Nocera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Heya,
I'd be interested in getting gnome-user-share into GNOME 2.26.
Currently, gnome-user-share is a simple capplet and daemon
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 21:11 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Isn't that what nfs does? Or for that matter, ftp? I don't understand
why a web server is needed for sharing files.
WebDAV is supported natively with Bonjour/Zeroconf in MacOS X and
Windows, and is very well supported in GVFS and
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 20:58 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
I don't think that this kind of FUD about Apache is very
constructive. Just because lighttpd has a light in its name it
doesn't mean that Apache is a slow huge beast. That is nonsense.
And just because Apache is famous
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 15:16 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 23 octobre 2008 à 17:02 +0200, Frederic Peters a écrit :
A point Patryk touched is that generic distributions will provide
Apache packages configured to run at startup, so it is not just a
matter of binary size.
What
2008/10/24 Bastien Nocera [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 21:11 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
Isn't that what nfs does? Or for that matter, ftp? I don't understand
why a web server is needed for sharing files.
WebDAV is supported natively with Bonjour/Zeroconf in MacOS X and
27 matches
Mail list logo
