World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
| older newer | first last |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3114] | Basic auth: it's not built-in but can be added in your RSP script. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3115] | or in mod-rest ? |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3116x2] | right |
If you're stateless, you don't need to use webapp (<=> session), simple RSP scripts would be enough, no ? | |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3118x5] | ok |
yes, I think so. | |
just thinking thru the issues :) | |
included files can't contain RSP can they? | |
they're just processed as straight text ... | |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3123x3] | no cookies => no access to webapps (unless you inject them in mod-rest...;-)) |
http://cheyenne-server.org/docs/rsp-api.html#def-21 | |
you can include either RSP (will be executed) or static files. | |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3126x3] | oh ... |
I'm sure I read somewhere that included files are just processed as text. Must have changed? | |
mutualize => share | |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3129] | More than a year ago. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3130x2] | not such word as mutualize |
Ok .. I'm out of date! | |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3132] | oh, thanks, fixing that. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3133] | and I need to re- RTM |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3134] | Fixed. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3135] | can I have an account on the wiki please |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3136] | sure |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3137x4] | my email is good ... |
value: request/posted
returns a binary! value.
is incorrect I think
| |
From memory, it returns a binary! or string! value | |
If it's a file saved to the web server as it's too large .. it's a string! holding the file name in %incoming/ | |
| Henrik 16-Oct-2008 [3141] | Are there any instances where Cheyenne would redirect back to the previous page if there was an error? |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3142x2] | Your API reference is not part of the wiki .. I can't amend it! :( |
Henrik .. why would you want that? | |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3144] | Main Menu / Using RSP ;-) |
| Henrik 16-Oct-2008 [3145x2] | Graham, I don't. Cheyenne is doing that right now on a new page I just created. The first version had a flaw that would not let it include a specific rebol include. Now I fixed it, but it keeps "bouncing away" from the page. |
older rsp pages work fine | |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3147] | Henrik, is this an untrapped RSP error? |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3148] | request/posted : I'm not sure, looking at the source code... |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3149] | either string! = type? request/posted)[ ; file name as large post f: trim/tail find/tail request/posted "incoming/" file: join %../incoming/ f write/binary to-rebol-file rejoin ["faxes/" filename ] read/binary file ][ ; binary content write/binary to-rebol-file rejoin ["faxes/" filename ] request/posted ] |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3150] | Henrik: never saw such kind of issue yet. |
| Henrik 16-Oct-2008 [3151x2] | Error 500 Access Error Cannot open <my file here> Near do %../../html.r Where: protected-exec |
http://rebol.hmkdesign.dk/site/pages/<-- try this page | |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3153x2] | Henrik, I've had some issues with relative paths and 'do ... in Cheyenne 'do is a mezzainine with different bindings. |
If you need to use 'do ... use *do | |
| Henrik 16-Oct-2008 [3155] | Graham, possibly, but I use this method in about 20 other rsp pages without problems. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3156] | version ? |
| Dockimbel 16-Oct-2008 [3157] | From v0.9.19, using 'do would by default bind your loaded code to the webapp context (and not to the global context). Btw, if you're using an external INCLUDE function, it may clash with RSP's global INCLUDE function. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3158] | I get an empty page ... well <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><title></title></head><body></body></html> |
| Henrik 16-Oct-2008 [3159x2] | Looks like 0.9.17 here |
Graham, ok. It's a local cache problem then. | |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3161] | Caching an old version of the web page? |
| Henrik 16-Oct-2008 [3162] | I don't know what it was, but it looked rather bizarre. |
| Graham 16-Oct-2008 [3163] | Heh. |
| older newer | first last |