r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server

GrahamC
14-May-2011
[10635]
Oh well, I'll get it integrated with my web app first and figure 
this out later on.
onetom
14-May-2011
[10636x2]
how about this?
http://rikrikrik.com/jquery/autosave/
or do u need the draft work accessible on serverside already?
GrahamC
14-May-2011
[10638x2]
no, so this is cute.
just need to make sure that if someone navigates away, they don't 
lose work
onetom
14-May-2011
[10640]
is bandwidth an issue? how much is the largest text they might need 
to save?
GrahamC
14-May-2011
[10641]
A couple of pages I guess
onetom
14-May-2011
[10642x2]
because it always gets sent w all the http requests then, if it's 
stored in a cookie. so if u have images in the same domain(/folder) 
for example, then data is sent for those too
imean the saved textarea data
Maxim
15-May-2011
[10644x3]
yeah, using cookies for storage isn't a good idea... also since many 
people are using cookie controlers now.
using server side character based logging of changed text shouldn't 
be a problem.   plus, if the browser breaks, when he comes back he 
finds all his text minus a word or two!


just log character changes and send them to the server at every word 
or line. when the server replies, send the next batch.
(using AJAX)
GrahamC
15-May-2011
[10647]
sounds like I would need to write some JS!
onetom
15-May-2011
[10648]
Maxim: im guessing graham doesnt really like to write JS and i have 
to admit, i don't like to write either if i can write rebol code 
instead OR it's already been written  :)
nve
15-May-2011
[10649]
You got script tiny : http://www.scriptiny.com/2010/02/javascript-wysiwyg-editor/
This site also provide tiny table, tony menu...
GrahamC
15-May-2011
[10650]
well, I got the tinymce working ...
Kaj
15-May-2011
[10651]
The ScripTiny stuff looks very good
onetom
16-May-2011
[10652]
except bolding doesnt work as a switch (in chrome)... i came across 
this in the 3rd second of trying it...
Kaj
16-May-2011
[10653]
Sounds like Chrome's fault, then
onetom
16-May-2011
[10654]
even in FF the text area loses the focus when i click on the Bold 
button
onetom
21-May-2011
[10655x2]
im preparing a redirect to google maps from an rsp script.
how can i assemble it in a less low-level way than this:

gmaps: http://maps.google.com/maps?

response/redirect rejoin [gmaps "saddr=" closest/address "&" "daddr=" 
params/dest]
i would need the request/query-string functionality but on my own 
parameters which has nothing to do w the request params
Dockimbel
21-May-2011
[10657]
Untested, but should work: 

build-query: func [url [url!] spec [block!] /local cnt][
    cnt: request/content
    request/content: reduce spec
    also 
        rejoin [url "?" request/query-string]
        request/content: cnt
]


response/redirect build-query http://maps.google.com/maps['saddr 
closest/address 'daddr params/dest]
onetom
21-May-2011
[10658]
okay, thanks... i was thinking about creating an empty request somehow. 
that would have been simpler. otherwise i would just overwrite the 
content...
onetom
25-May-2011
[10659x2]
Automatic output compression (using deflate method)
hmm... it doesn't seem to happen for static files
is that normal?
Dockimbel
25-May-2011
[10661x3]
Yes, it is only supported for RSP output.
Adding transparent compression for static resources was also planned, 
but:
- it is not easy to support efficiently

- when static file serving performance really matters, a fast front-end 
like nginx is preferable
So that feature is low priority unless we can found a simple way 
to implement it while keeping it efficient and transparent for the 
user.
onetom
25-May-2011
[10664x3]
we are showing around our stuff in thailand, china, hungary while 
the server is in singapore (ec2) and we are using the non minimized 
angular.js which is 320k.

there would be no reason to use the minimized one if it would be 
compressed.
but we dont want to complicate the deploy process by switching between 
the minimized and non minimized versions, however we need from time 
to time to check out the source and even tweak it sometimes
so for us it would be freaking efficient :)

otherwise we are veeeery far from hitting the raw static file throughput 
...
Dockimbel
25-May-2011
[10667]
You can pre-compress it in gzip format, but Cheyenne will need to 
be patched to send the appropriate Content-Encoding header (should 
be part of a dedicated Cheyenne mod, that could also handle the pre-compression 
on disk).
onetom
25-May-2011
[10668x2]
i wouldnt even mind calling gzip every time...
it would still speedup the transfer in most situations
Dockimbel
25-May-2011
[10670x2]
Well, writing such mod is trivial, the non-trivial part is avoiding 
making a mess of the web app folders or cluttering the disk with 
unused files.
In other words: give me an efficient set of rules to manage the compressed 
versions of served files and I will code the mod. ;-)
onetom
25-May-2011
[10672x2]
and a plain filesize check, like if 10'000 < select info? file 'size 
[call "gzip..."]
i would do on the fly compression only. for "personal" usage, it's 
a good compromise
Dockimbel
25-May-2011
[10674x2]
On the fly: that scheme doesn't work for big files (think 10MB or 
100MB
if you have to re-compress the file on each request
onetom
25-May-2011
[10676x3]
maybe if u r serving to a 100Mbit connection from a Pentium I...
such automatic compression makes sense only for mid sized files, 
where the file needs to be seemlessly uncompressed on the other side. 
if the file is bigger, u want to be more specific about the compression 
method anyway...
on  the other hand, i just ran a
time gzip -c some.avi > /dev/null

where the avi was 1.2GB and the runtime was 1m19s on my mac laptop, 
which is

15MByte / sec, so 150MBit/s roughly.... i use wifi most of the time, 
which is below 100Mbit usually...
Andreas
25-May-2011
[10679]
gzipping angular 0.9.15 reduces size from 330k to 86k in 0.06 seconds 
on my machine (with CALL/wait of gzip from within REBOL).
Dockimbel
25-May-2011
[10680]
60 ms for a single request is way too much.
Andreas
25-May-2011
[10681]
so on-the-fly compression of only static *.js *.css files would probably 
be worth it
onetom
25-May-2011
[10682x2]
muhhahahaaa :)
that request takes several seconds to download in the mentioned scenarios..
Andreas
25-May-2011
[10684]
those 60ms are worth it if the connection is slower than ~4MByte/sec