Hi,
Look here:
lexxsrv:nscp 5> ns_urlencode -part path "foo+bar"
foo+bar
lexxsrv:nscp 6> ns_urldecode -part path foo+bar
foo bar
This does not seem right to me, does it?
I would say, the following must be truth:
$string == [ns_urldecode -part path [ns_urlencode -part path
$string]]
wh
> lexxsrv:nscp 5> ns_urlencode -part path "foo+bar"
> foo+bar
> lexxsrv:nscp 6> ns_urldecode -part path foo+bar
> foo bar
>
> This does not seem right to me, does it?
if "foo+bar" is already encoded, it's ok that another ns_urlencode -part path
doesn't add anything more, and the urldecode works
On 29.06.2007, at 11:39, Bernd Eidenschink wrote:
> if "foo+bar" is already encoded, it's ok that another ns_urlencode -
> part path
> doesn't add anything more, and the urldecode works as expected, not?
>
It does. See my recent response to my own mail.
Sorry for the confusion.
BTW: I seem to
On 29.06.2007, at 11:05, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Look here:
>
> lexxsrv:nscp 5> ns_urlencode -part path "foo+bar"
> foo+bar
> lexxsrv:nscp 6> ns_urldecode -part path foo+bar
> foo bar
>
> This does not seem right to me, does it?
> I would say, the following must be truth:
>
> $st
I think it is time to share our great achievements on Naviserver with
the world:-))
i mean to release it
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
> On 29.06.2007, at 11:39, Bernd Eidenschink wrote:
>
>> if "foo+bar" is already encoded, it's ok that another ns_urlencode -
>> part path
>> doesn't add anything mo
I noticed that the newly back-ported adp stuff uses calls like open()
and stat() instead of Tcl_OpenFileChannel() etc., and therefore wont
work in a Starpack (right?) environment.
The current situation is that we swapped all (most..) of the file
system calls for Tcl equivalents. One of the proble
On 6/29/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, the idea is that starpacks should be supported because Zoran
> needs it, the Tcl file system API is ugly, and our coverage is spotty
> (static files work, ADP doesn't), so I'm suggesting that we drop most
> of the VFS calls and provide
On 6/29/07, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/29/07, Stephen Deasey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway, the idea is that starpacks should be supported because Zoran
> > needs it, the Tcl file system API is ugly, and our coverage is spotty
> > (static files work, ADP doesn't), so I'm suggest
There's some new ADP result caching functionality. How does this
affect Tcl pages which are now executed by the ADP engine?
nsd/adpparse.c: NsAdpParse():
/*
* Special case when we evalutating Tcl file, we just wrap it as
* Tcl proc and save in ADP block with cache enabled or
* just execute th
That may be not ideal but my goal was to use same engine (ADP) for
caching and keep compatibility. Also, performance-wise this is faster
than the old mechanism. Anyway, to cache Tcl files, only proc can give
that ability without re-parsing.
Stephen Deasey wrote:
> There's some new ADP result c
On 6/29/07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That may be not ideal but my goal was to use same engine (ADP) for
> caching and keep compatibility.
Right, but that's what I'm saying: it's not using the same engine
because Tcl pages are handled in a completely different way, but that
mecha
What are you suggesting? i am not defending what is currently
implemented but my only concern is backward compatibility, i have too
many applications running on naviserver and many companies depend on it:-))
Stephen Deasey wrote:
> On 6/29/07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That may
On 6/29/07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are you suggesting? i am not defending what is currently
> implemented but my only concern is backward compatibility, i have too
> many applications running on naviserver and many companies depend on it:-))
I'm not suggesting making any
Frankly may be because i am doing hundreds things today i missed what
needs to be changed. I am for changes:-))
ADP engine is what i've ported from AS 4.5.
Stephen Deasey wrote:
> On 6/29/07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What are you suggesting? i am not defending what is currentl
ns_adp_include takes the new -cache and -nocache options. -nocache is
a boolean which suppresses caching. -cache takes an integer number of
seconds which is the amount of time the result of evaluating the ADP
code should be cached.
I think a better name for -cache would be -expires. We already use
yes, all those cache/nocache and other weird optinos came with old
naviserver and some parts from new AS 4.5. It needs cleanup.
But i do not like new AS 4.5 config syntax, looks ugly
Stephen Deasey wrote:
> ns_adp_include takes the new -cache and -nocache options. -nocache is
> a boolean which s
On 6/30/07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes, all those cache/nocache and other weird optinos came with old
> naviserver and some parts from new AS 4.5. It needs cleanup.
Oh, forgot to ask. The -tcl option you added to ns_adp_include and
ns_adp_parse, was this just for completeness
no problem
Stephen Deasey wrote:
> On 6/30/07, Vlad Seryakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yes, all those cache/nocache and other weird optinos came with old
>> naviserver and some parts from new AS 4.5. It needs cleanup.
>
>
> Oh, forgot to ask. The -tcl option you added to ns_adp_include and
18 matches
Mail list logo
