Re: [On-Rev Tio] could someone test the index.html files in her/his account on Tio?

Silly typo - yesterday when I wrote: With portable HDDs selling at around US$50/GB multiple redundant backups are easy, esp. with: ...of course I meant "US$50/TB" - it would be insane to pay $50/GB these days. :) -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Systems Software Design and Development for

Re: "fork" command?

Monte Goulding wrote: >> On 9 Jan 2016, at 6:21 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >> If not via forking by what means can we handle concurrency? > > For Apache mod_fcgid will start multiple processes for you. As will > spawn-fcgi if you aren’t running a web server that will do it for you. Now I'm

Difference between LC on Mac and LC server

Hi list When I run the following code on my Mac (LC community 6.5.2) : get "04/17/2016" convert it to seconds put it I get 1460844000 When I run the same code on LC server (on-rev account) I get 1460840400 Any idea wht there's a difference ? Thanks jbv

Re: "fork" command?

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 7:33 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > Now I'm super-confused: if we already have everything we need for FastCGI > under Apache, what's all the fuss about? Isn’t it you making the fuss ;-) We don’t actually have everything. Someone either needs to

Re: Difference between LC on Mac and LC server

jbv wrote: When I run the following code on my Mac (LC community 6.5.2) : get "04/17/2016" convert it to seconds put it I get 1460844000 When I run the same code on LC server (on-rev account) I get 1460840400 Any idea wht there's a difference ? With a difference of 3600, it looks

Re: "fork" command?

Monte Goulding wrote: >> On 9 Jan 2016, at 7:33 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >> Now I'm super-confused: if we already have everything we need for >> FastCGI under Apache, what's all the fuss about? > > Isn’t it you making the fuss ;-) I seem to be in good company, since FastCGI is something you

Re: [On-Rev Tio] could someone test the index.html files in her/his account on Tio?

> Am 08.01.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Richard Gaskin : > > Silly typo - yesterday when I wrote: >> With portable HDDs selling at around US$50/GB multiple redundant backups >> are easy, esp. with: > > ...of course I meant "US$50/TB" - it would be insane to pay $50/GB

Re: "fork" command?

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 6:21 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > If not via forking by what means can we handle concurrency? For Apache mod_fcgid will start multiple processes for you. As will spawn-fcgi if you aren’t running a web server that will do it for you. Cheers

Re: HTML5 update: why it is slow?

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 2:20 am, Trevor DeVore wrote: > > start asynchronous block "processThing" with error callback Background threads then. A while back we were discussing threading

Re: "fork" command?

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 8:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > I'm fine with writing some code so the main process hands off tasks to > workers. The issue I've run into is that I've found no way to hand the > socket connection to the worker. This is unnecessary. The

Re: "fork" command?

Monte Goulding wrote: >> On 9 Jan 2016, at 9:35 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> ...if one were to make a sort of Node.lc I would imagine they'd >> need to hand off socket connections to workers, no? > > Or you could just act as an intermediary accepting connections from > whatever is making the

Re: "fork" command?

Isn't that when you deploy your app on EC2 instances with Elasitc Load Balancer and all your static content served by CloudFront from S3? Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Jan 2016, at 11:45 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > I've used that and it seems to work well enough,

Re: "fork" command?

It was just an example. There's obviously more than one way to scale. Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Jan 2016, at 12:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > If Amazon was the only way to run web sites that assumption would be correct.

Re: Beyond POSIX time

On 01/08/2016 03:06 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark Waddingham flagged this a while back, *a while* ... 2007 ... rev 2.8.1rc3 -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url

Re: "fork" command?

Monte Goulding wrote: > There's obviously more than one way to scale. Agreed. The question I and others may have not far down the road, and the question Todd already faced, is whether LiveCode can be a part of it. If I were to play it safe I could limit LiveCode to the client only, and use

Re: Beyond POSIX time

On 1/8/2016 4:53 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Try this: on mouseUp put "1/1/69" into t convert t to secs convert t to short date put t end mouseUp Is there yet a convenient way to handle conversion of dates prior to 1/1/70? I get 1/1/69. I get the same thing if I specify the year

Re: "fork" command?

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 9:35 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > Monte Goulding wrote: > >> On 9 Jan 2016, at 8:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> > >> I'm fine with writing some code so the main process hands off tasks > >> to workers. The issue I've run into is that I've

Re: "fork" command?

Monte Goulding wrote: >> On 9 Jan 2016, at 8:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> >> I'm fine with writing some code so the main process hands off tasks >> to workers. The issue I've run into is that I've found no way to >> hand the socket connection to the worker. > > This is unnecessary. It might

Beyond POSIX time

Try this: on mouseUp put "1/1/69" into t convert t to secs convert t to short date put t end mouseUp Is there yet a convenient way to handle conversion of dates prior to 1/1/70? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Systems Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the

Re: "fork" command?

Monte Goulding wrote: > It’s worth noting that FastCGI doesn’t require fork > http://www.fastcgi.com/drupal/node/6?q=node/22#S3 > so if you are keen to implement FastCGI in script you could > try doing that now. If fork is implemented then it should be > easy to add to your implementation. If

Re: Beyond POSIX time

J. Landman Gay wrote: On 1/8/2016 4:53 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Try this: on mouseUp put "1/1/69" into t convert t to secs convert t to short date put t end mouseUp Is there yet a convenient way to handle conversion of dates prior to 1/1/70? I get 1/1/69. I get the same thing

Re: Beyond POSIX time

Hi, Malte created a date library https://github.com/derbrill/libdate If i remember right it can handle dates below 1970 and above 2036. Matthias > Am 08.01.2016 um 23:53 schrieb Richard Gaskin : > > Try this: > > on mouseUp > put "1/1/69" into t > convert t to

Re: Beyond POSIX time

Richard. I get the date you first put in. Tried several, all the way back to the battle of Hastings. All good The negative seconds do the math as well as ordinary ones. The thing went south when I tried the birth of Charlemangne. I suppose thee digit dates are not well received. Craig

Re: "fork" command?

On 01/08/2016 05:48 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: But I like LiveCode. I'd even go so far as to say that I love it. And when I see truly massive systems like Eve Online, and efficient systems like Node.js, I see things that are very close to what LiveCode can do right now - but is LiveCode close

Re: "fork" command?

Mark Wieder wrote: I think part of maturing as a developer is being able to pick an appropriate tool for a given job. And as a business owner as well. I'm willing to explore the question, but I'm not betting my business on it; hence the exploration. It would benefit the community, and by

Re: "fork" command?

On 2016-01-07 20:03, Richard Gaskin wrote: I'm just far enough into Robert Love's "Linux System Programming" that I think the solution to FastCGI may be much simpler than I'd previously thought. I think you need to read a bit more about fork ;) I think we need a new command that launches a

Re: HTML5 update: why it is slow?

On 2016-01-07 00:25, Monte Goulding wrote: On 7 Jan 2016, at 9:01 am, Peter TB Brett wrote: It remains to be seen whether I can figure out how do that. ;-) Personally I’d rather you declare force majeure on wait for HTML5 and apply your considerable talents to

Re: HTML5 update: why it is slow?

I like it! Sent from my iPhone > On 8 Jan 2016, at 8:52 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote: > > on processThing > load url "..." with "processThing2" > end processThing > > on processThing2 pUrlData > revb_query_async("processThing3", ..., "SELECT * FROM x WHERE y = %1", >

Re: HTML5 update: why it is slow?

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote: > > That actually is referring to *blocking wait* which is evil. Non-blocking > wait is entirely natural though. It is the difference between being able to > write code like: > > on processThing > put url "..." into

Re: LC app not displaying correctly on iPhone

Ray, I didn’t see a response to this… Yes, to your question… all you need to do is to make sure you include a link in the Standalone Application Settings for each of the iPhone Splash Screens. You don’t have to name the screens “Default” or anything specific. LC takes care of that in the build

Re: HTML5 update: why it is slow?

Like sockets with messages ;) > On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Monte Goulding wrote: > > I like it! > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 8 Jan 2016, at 8:52 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote: >> >> on processThing >> load url "..." with "processThing2" >> end