World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
shadwolf 11-Apr-2009 [13242] | i always wonder if parse could work on binary streams |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13243x3] | I came up with a way for PARSE to work on R3 ports, under certain conditions. It won't work with R2 ports - bad model. We'll see :) |
But "came up with a way" doesn't mean in the *current* PARSE - I mean a way that would work in theory in the proposed PARSE rewrite. | |
Quick survey: Do any of you use %rebol.r and/or %user.r, and if so, for what? | |
Henrik 11-Apr-2009 [13246] | I don't, since I move environments a lot. |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13247] | We are discussing the possibility of removing those files from R3, and replacing %user.r with a declarative preferences file, for security. |
Henrik 11-Apr-2009 [13248] | is it going to be a dialect? |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13249x2] | Yes, presumably - definitely *not* code. Gregg has been requesting a preferences infrastructure for a while, and it's a good idea. |
All of my uses of %rebol.r are covered better by other processes in the new system: - Patching REBOL -> DevBase, or custom-built host processes - Platform-specific stuff -> modules, or DevBase - Badly set settings (particularly system/user/home on non-*nix platforms) -> DevBase | |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13251] | I use user.r to add functions which I use in Console. If you remove it, I can create a boot script myself and call rebol with it. I almost never run Rebol script just clicking on them. |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13252] | Oldes, I frequently call REBOL scripts by just clicking on them, but those scripts load utility functions and halt to the console :) |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13253] | Also I patch default 'attempt function and http scheme (to be able use cookies transparently) |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13254] | DevBase :) |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13255] | I'm not sure the code is so good to be accepted and also not all people want to use cookies. |
Geomol 11-Apr-2009 [13256] | I use user.r to get some UNIX like commands and for get an include command. Will probably not be necessary in the future (now we got unix commands and with modules). |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13257x2] | I think that the REBOL http scheme should have cookie support that you can turn on or off (don't know which the default should be). |
We've been trying to add console file management commands where simple, but a whole unix-like command module would be nice :) | |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13259] | Also I modify user-agent to pretend that the request is from browser. |
Henrik 11-Apr-2009 [13260x2] | brianH, still need some nice copy/move commands though. :-) |
but it would be cool to do a whole shell as a module. how much? 10-20k? | |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13262x2] | Yeah, I have just been working on a whole-package browser spoofing client, not just the user agent. I should clean it up and port to R3. |
We don't have file attribute setting or getting yet, so file copy/move might be out for now, unless you call platform functions. | |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13264] | When you say DevBase, do you mean the R2 based with gui or the file sharing in R3 chat? |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13265] | A whole-shell module sounds like a good community module. DevBase: The R3 version - the R2 version is closed. |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13266x2] | Then to be hones.. I use R3 chat every day, but don't know, where are the files:) |
Got it... NF to list new files | |
Henrik 11-Apr-2009 [13268x2] | If I could figure it out, so can you. :-) |
BrianH, yes, it would be a good test of modules and ports. if it could be started from the start screen, that would make it even more attractive. | |
Oldes 11-Apr-2009 [13270] | Is there any command to list all topics with files? |
Henrik 11-Apr-2009 [13271] | not AFAIK. also topics that say they have files may be a parent that has files, not the topic itself. |
BrianH 11-Apr-2009 [13272x3] | Worse, some of the topics get the "files here" notification when they don't have any. To be fixed. |
Still better than the R2 version though. | |
I mostly work with the files in 26 (Mezzanines) and 837 (R2-Forward). | |
Henrik 11-Apr-2009 [13275] | I see that Carl ignored my auto-topic fix for some reason. |
Sunanda 11-Apr-2009 [13276] | Brian -- Survey.....I rarely use either. I prefer applications to be self-contained. |
Ammon 11-Apr-2009 [13277] | I would use user.r if REBOL consistently started in the same directory everytime. I end up with %public folders all over the place. My use of user.r will be better handled with a custom host process so this is not a request for user.r to be kept just a statment that I haven't been able to use it for what I want to in the past. |
PatrickP61 12-Apr-2009 [13278] | I have thought of using user.r or Rebol.r as a way to run a script to log my execution of scripts, although I have not done so. I tend to think of those two items as a "hook" where I can execute my own generic code for whatever purpose needed. I have often thought of having either Rebol.r or User.r enforce protect on system words and then make sure Rebol.r or User.r is read only, but there may be other ways to do this better. I am still new to rebol. |
Izkata 12-Apr-2009 [13279] | as to %user.r - my only use for it is so that certain functions I've defined that I use a lot (pad, time, fold, Logfile object, etc) are automatically loaded in any script I want them in, as well as a terminal session. |
Anton 12-Apr-2009 [13280] | BrianH: I use user.r for a few little things, but mainly I get it to call my anton-user.r script. I forget when but there were some instances (when I was on Windows) where rebol would overwrite user.r (testing a fresh rebol beta?). That's why I decided to get all my code out of it and just DO my anton-user.r script from it. On linux I also set system/options/home where I want (not the user directory). I don't change environments much. All new rebol executables are placed into the same directory and beaten with a stick until they work using the same user.r and my anton-user.r script. |
Pekr 12-Apr-2009 [13281] | BrianH: I don't agree to your nor Carl's reasoning towards patches: 1) I use custom patch for URL ftp format, which goes probably anti RFC, but is very practical (@, # in username). Putting those things into DevBase is nto an option - it would not be accepted 2) As Carl suggested, building custom rebol.exe is not an option too, because - I don't want tonnes of various rebol.exes around, one adding this thing, another one changing the other thing. 3) This whole thing is not a big deal, I just will have to add do %my-init.r into the beginning of each of my scripts, which sucks though ... |
btiffin 12-Apr-2009 [13282] | BrianH; All my nodes have a %user.r. I define all my comand line shortcuts there. Things like ls: :list-dir dir: :list-dir cd: :change-dir pwd: :what-dir ~: :view-root .: %. ..: %.. scripts: :view-root/library/scripts And those usually work best with GNU/Linux when I just know it'll look in ~/.rebol/view |
BrianH 12-Apr-2009 [13283x4] | Brian, ls, cd and pwd are predefined in R3. We're considering putting in ~ handling in many functions. |
Pekr, the reasoning behind blocking patches is the same reason there is no browser plugin - R2 is insecure, and R3 won't be. Every patch that you can make in your %user.r is what malware running on your system can make with your user permissions. The goal is to have tons of REBOL hosts around. Every application with a plugin interface could have a R3 host as a plugin. R3 is going to be able to generate programs now, not just scripts. It'll be a real development tool. The problem with all this is that being able to patch the runtime using %rebol.r or %user.r, so can anyone else, and you won't know about it. Can you say exploit? We already had a false positive for R3 this year, an old alpha mistakenly marked as malware. We don't want the next time to be for real. The only way to avoid that is to make R3 secure. The way to make something secure is to make the behavior of your code predictable. That means making your requirements explicit. | |
Anton, we are trying to come up with sensible defaults for all of the options. Get in on the conversation in R3 chat :) | |
It will be easy to specify your requirements in R3 - we have modules. Put your patches in a module and either add that module to the Needs header of your script, or include it on the command line, or build it into your host program. Like the SDK but better. | |
Gabriele 15-Apr-2009 [13287] | Petr: there is absolutely no reason to have your #1 as long as REBOL url!s are fixed. |
Pekr 15-Apr-2009 [13288x2] | Gabriele - I know - but do you remember how RT refused to allow dot in the front of email adress, because it went against RFC? :-) Hopefully we can fix it. |
Gabriele - what is the problem with chunked mode of http 1.1 protocol, so that it is currently disabled? Any advice for a set-up, of how to debug it best? What is the chunked mode good for? I am willing to do some tests to track possible problems, so any quick pointer would be fine ... | |
Geomol 15-Apr-2009 [13290] | Pekr, do you have problems with url! now? Doesn't it work as it should? |
Pekr 15-Apr-2009 [13291] | Yes, you can't parse ftp://[user-:-email-:-com]:[pass-:-ftp-:-domain-:-com] |
older newer | first last |