World: r3wp
[!REBOL3-OLD1]
older newer | first last |
Maxim 7-Oct-2009 [18872] | I have a rank of 50 on devbase... it should be sufficient no? |
Pekr 7-Oct-2009 [18873] | I am not sure if to create the priority group? Because then regular discussion might start there, and we will have channel split. OTOH why have things all in one channel? What do you think? |
BrianH 7-Oct-2009 [18874] | Well, save your changes locally and ping Carl with the error. It's probably a file permissions missetting on the host. |
Maxim 7-Oct-2009 [18875] | yes... create the new group, its time R3 started splitting up a bit, there is too much stuff all in one place already as it is. there should have been a new R3 parse created a long time ago. |
BrianH 7-Oct-2009 [18876] | Done. |
Claude 7-Oct-2009 [18877x2] | good |
;-) newline | |
Pekr 7-Oct-2009 [18879x2] | I think that our Linux and OS-X friends are going to get 2.100.87 release soon too :-) |
Actually - they were released already - but only for OS-X Intel and Linux/Fedora, so far ... I think Kaj can upload new version to his R3 demo site :-) | |
Maxim 7-Oct-2009 [18881] | I have thought of a way to re-cycle devices as the actual interface for threading. the nice thing is that my new proposal includes function calling and port modes... so we could build threads inter-comms using any of the two methods :-) actually, we could implement the WHOLE threads system ourself... we don't actually have to wait for Carl to do it. |
Pekr 7-Oct-2009 [18882] | I would not do it that way, as we surely want it to have in a form of a dtype, so unless you get utypes, you can't do it ... |
Maxim 7-Oct-2009 [18883x6] | this would also be re-used for LNS, which means LNS could be based on a DLL, or tcp, or threads... from the clients pov, he sees no difference. |
a port is basically a datatype. | |
but you'd also be able to do something like: a: import thread ; this creates a process, connects ourself to it using device interface. a/do-something-in-other-thread arg1 arg2 :-) | |
do-something-in-other-thread would be handled like a callback in the thread. so its uber simple to setup. you could also do a reverse device setup, since the R3 process would contain both driver and client code, all you'd need is for the device to have a command which tells it how to connect to you, and you become both driver and clients for each other. making it very easy to provide async comms in both directions. | |
I'm still working on the details... the draft is going to be ready in a few days, while I iron out an actual implementation example and work on the details. | |
but the end goal is that we have ONE api for just about any kind of REBOL interface. | |
Pekr 7-Oct-2009 [18889] | So, when can we expect your doc to appear? :-) Maybe it pushes a Carl towards tasking being actually done for 3.0. I don't know why, but it seems to me, that concurrency is not planned for 3.0. But maybe just wrong feelings on my side, as I have not discussed it with Carl. Hope the reality is different ... |
Maxim 7-Oct-2009 [18890x3] | I tried putting a small draft of it earlier but the R3 wiki didn't let me... left a not on R3 chat, I'll see Carl's reply. |
but I still have to go over the idea a few times so I can trim some of the fat in the whole draft. | |
it also has to be consistent, and there are some things I can't really go in depth, because the host code isn't yet available. | |
Pekr 7-Oct-2009 [18893] | Max - OK. Just remember, that Carl wants to get it quick, or so is my feeling. So you should better finish it ASAP, as once Parse is done, he might be back to revisit the list, and reorder priorities. Hopefully I think that Extensions will remain high priority, as it seems they will be used even for Host to Core isolation ... |
Maxim 7-Oct-2009 [18894x2] | yep. The moment I can add the page to the wiki I will at least post what I have, even if I edit it often, based on everyone's comments. |
Its a proposal, an idea, something to reflect on... I'm not trying to prove that I have the best idea, but I really think we should see if what I propose is dooable... imagine, threads, dll interfacing, inter process coms, callbacks, LNS, all using the exact same client code, and much of the same on the driver side too :-) | |
Steeve 7-Oct-2009 [18896] | Have we a built-in function to decode xml data, currently ? Perhaps, i missed something... |
Sunanda 7-Oct-2009 [18897] | R2 has 'parse-xml and its helper function 'xml-language. You can copy their sources to R3 .... but they are currently seriously buggy there. Gavin's XML parser was better in R2....It has no equivalent in R3 yet: http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=xml-parse.r I guess we are waiting for parse to settle down before getting decent XML tools. |
Steeve 7-Oct-2009 [18898] | Well, i only wanted construct a block of tags and strings. So i came with that, it's enough for me currently. src: read %frog.svg out: [] parse src [ any [ copy str to [#"<" | end] opt [if (not empty? str) (append out to-string str)] not end src: (set [data src] transcode/next src append out data) :src ] ] |
Claude 7-Oct-2009 [18899x2] | demo error with sub-panel !!!! |
error => append2 has no value | |
Henrik 7-Oct-2009 [18901x2] | known bug |
http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Devices New document on devices. | |
GiuseppeC 7-Oct-2009 [18903] | I have read that Carl asked your opinion about embedding SQLLite in REBOL. What about it ? |
Henrik 8-Oct-2009 [18904] | http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/functions/bind-q.html Carl posted a note in the BIND? function, that there are two types of bindings. I hadn't noticed that before, so it may be old news, but now we know. |
BrianH 8-Oct-2009 [18905] | Good to see the old news documented somewhere outside of CureCode and the blog :) |
Pekr 8-Oct-2009 [18906] | BrianH: what is Console2? |
BrianH 8-Oct-2009 [18907] | http://sf.net/projects/console/ |
Pekr 8-Oct-2009 [18908] | BrianH: did you know about the 'evoke function? :-) |
BrianH 8-Oct-2009 [18909] | Only of its existence, not how to use it. |
Henrik 8-Oct-2009 [18910] | evoke 'someword gives instructions |
Pekr 8-Oct-2009 [18911x5] | it is now clearer, because of my stack-size request ... |
I had to put new ticket there though, as we need stack keyword for secure ... | |
secure none evoke [stack-size 1000000] | |
I don't like the entire removal of security in order to be able to raise the stack. We need secure [stack allow] or even better secure [stack 1000000], and in such a case evoke is not needed ... | |
Apart from that, I don't regards #1252 to be solved. Carl just allowed the stack to be settable, but he left default value to be at 1/4 of the R2 value. 4009 recursion stack limit? Come-on ... | |
BrianH 8-Oct-2009 [18916] | Secure evoke. |
Pekr 8-Oct-2009 [18917] | Secure evoke? Yes, if 'evoke will be used for some other magic things than setting the stack :-) I wonder what is its another usage :-) |
BrianH 8-Oct-2009 [18918] | A suggestion, not something that yet exists. |
Pekr 8-Oct-2009 [18919x3] | I know - you might add it as a comment to #1259 |
it is maybe better than secure stack ... | |
as for Console2 - but that is gfx console, no? Will it work on terminal set-up? | |
older newer | first last |