World: r3wp

Let's hope that gets you through the demo....Good luck!

it crashed again :-(

I think I'll panic and allocate 100000 elements to every single block 
in the database

i had such a problem with massive gui and async. Workarounded the 
following way: recycle is off permanently. there is a thread (do-every 
or such) which checks how much memory was allocated and when it is 
to much it recycled. crashing stopped.

you may try  recycle/off   and do it yourself

:)

;like

if 20 * 1000 * 1000 + stats > last-mem [  recycle .  last-mem: stats 
]
;and that every 0.01 second or so.

anyway.... using   make block! []  is quite useless

allocating 100000 elements for each block will slow down performance 
too much I guess

Its only for demo, and 3:30 left. better waste memory than a contract..

with recycle forced off, it seems to be running OK for now

just make sure you recycle sometimes... if it's long running process

it will not run more than 2-3 hours today :-)

ok, it ran perfectly. the demo was approved and the product goes 
live on Wednesday.

Good news!
So you have a few days to fix the recycle problem for real :-)

actually I'm going to look at a printerserver, which deadlocks, if 
two people are trying to print too close to eachother.

it's quite simple, I think it was based on some cookbook code. moving 
to ports for that...

this is an annoyance ... but 'to-local-file drops the trailing slash 
for directories

confirmed under OSX

Rambo it ??

yep

Ok

it's not a problem the other way around, so yes, it's inconsistent.

Done.

Henrik, I see regular "Crash Should not happen" on one of my scripts, 
so you are not alone.

anyone willing to find a way to reproduce it?

I don't have anything trivial that will trigger the bug. It's a big 
application that can run for a while before crashing....And the code 
has been tweaked to minimise the occurrence of the problem.

i feel the pain - same problem i had with chord.

but at this point (focused on R3) RT does not have enough resources 
to debug a big app.

well, if it's about memory allocation and clean up, would there not 
be a way to torture it? What's the worst possible way to stress the 
garbage collector?

recycle/torture

but i guess it won't show in that case...

something that randomly creates a large amount of blocks, inserts, 
deletes, manipulates, copies and does various other things.

just found, that youtube do not respect HTTP1.0 protocol => sends 
HTTP1.1 303 response even if client require HTTP1.0 (which is Rebol 
case). As there is no response specified for 303 in Rebol's http 
handler, it can be fixed using:

use [tmp][

 tmp: select second get in system/schemes/http/handler 'open to-set-word 
 'response-actions
	if none? find tmp 303
	insert tmp reduce [303 select tmp 302]
]

whith the patch above you should be able to do for example:

trace/net on

p: open/direct http://www.youtube.com/get_video?video_id=FVbf9tOGwno&t=OEgsToPDskKR0Ng6kANs3Z4VNG81T2tZ
error? try [close p]

(Reichard: will be fixed the Altme bug which cripples text with long 
links?)

it should be easy imho

there is a silly bug in my patch, it should be:
use [tmp][

 tmp: select second get in system/schemes/http/handler 'open to-set-word 
 'response-actions
	if none? find tmp 303 [ insert tmp reduce [303 select tmp 302] ]
]

Oldes, note that you can do this, which looks clearer to me:

select second get in system/schemes/http/handler 'open [response-actions:]

Oldes, how do you classify this patch ? Is it simply improving Rebol's 
HTTP 1.0 scheme, or is it half-way sliding towards HTTP 1.1 ?
(ie. does the official HTTP 1.0 spec contain a 303 response ?)

(if not, then this should be called a "workaround patch" or "temporary 
migration patch")

it's patch for buggy foreign servers... as server should not return 
HTTP1.1 response if client requires HTTP1.0

Ok, so let me restate the situation:

Due to a buggy foreign server, we are patching our HTTP scheme, which 
declares itself as HTTP1.0, with a part from HTTP1.1.
(I just want to clarify that HTTP 1.0 does not contain 303.)

official HTTP1.0 spec doesn't know 303 response. And there are also 
missing 305 and 307 forward responses.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-10.3.4

Note: Many pre-HTTP/1.1 user agents do not understand the 303

      status. When interoperability with such clients is a concern, the

      302 status code may be used instead, since most user agents react
      to a 302 response as described here for 303.

Excellent, that's what I wanted to know, thankyou.

Gab .. are you submitting and then replying to your own tickets?

Graham - actually it might be educative :-)

or pathological :-)