World: r3wp
[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server
older newer | first last |
Robert 10-Nov-2010 [9231] | Cool Cheyenne on OSX... I will give it a try on our new server. |
Dockimbel 17-Nov-2010 [9232] | SVN revision 110: FEAT: default REBOL CGI scripts are now run as normal CGI. FEAT: new config keyword: fast-rebol-cgi. Forces running REBOL CGI scripts in FastCGI mode. FIX: (Windows) CGI handler rewritten to fix environment variables passing. FIX: CGI 'set-env mapping code refactored, setup errors are now properly logged. FIX: CGI scripts errors are now logged in %trace.log file. Windows binaries are available for testing: http://cheyenne-server.org/tmp/cheyenne-r110-pro.zip http://cheyenne-server.org/tmp/cheyenne-r110-cmd.zip |
Dockimbel 19-Nov-2010 [9233] | New binaries for revision 114: http://cheyenne-server.org/blog.rsp?view=24 |
Endo 24-Nov-2010 [9234] | what was the difference between pro and cmd versions? Sorry if it was asked for several times before. |
Dockimbel 24-Nov-2010 [9235] | - pro: REBOL/Pro kernel - cmd: REBOL/Command kernel |
Endo 24-Nov-2010 [9236] | no functionality difference, right? |
Dockimbel 24-Nov-2010 [9237] | No, Cheyenne just relies on /Library and /Shell components which are present in both kernels. |
GrahamC 24-Nov-2010 [9238] | Yes, command kernel allows you access to odbc database sources |
amacleod 25-Nov-2010 [9239] | Does cheyenne support callbacks |
Kaj 25-Nov-2010 [9240] | From where to where? |
amacleod 25-Nov-2010 [9241x5] | from a client app (phone app) to my server with my data base. like a json call in js |
using jo js framework; joScript(url + "&callback=Commuter.dataSource.setData"); | |
So the server, assuming it supports a callback, sends back something like this, which gets executed immediately: Commuter.dataSource.setData({ ... JSON data ...}); | |
Maybe i'm confuesed. Is the callback a function of the web server or is it just how I setup my cgi script? | |
do i just format my data result to look like: Commuter.dataSource.setData({ ... JSON data ...}); and then 'print' it for the client to catch (read)? | |
Oldes 26-Nov-2010 [9246x4] | I think so. |
Also you may need to set up correct mime type. The best way is to use wireshark to see how it looks elsewhere. | |
But basicaly I guess that your framework is just using JS to get some data from server. | |
So it must be pretty easy to make it in Cheyenne.. so the final answer is: yes:) | |
Kaj 26-Nov-2010 [9250x4] | I don't think that should be called a callback. The most defining nature of callbacks is that they are asynchronous, and that just doesn't fit into the browser/web server model |
I suspect they would call it a callback because some JavaScript is transferred to be executed on the other side, but that's just exchanging program code, not asynchronicity | |
So the answer is indeed that this is nothing more than a normal request yielding a response, where the response happens to be JSON or maybe even full JavaScript. This depends entirely on your own server and client programs, not on the intermediating web server | |
The code in my Try REBOL site supports this, although it isn't even used that way | |
GrahamC 1-Dec-2010 [9254x2] | If you view this page https://fd.cloud-ehr.net/drugreactions.rsp?rxcuilist=855348541713 541713 849339 108911 Does your browser complain that it doesn't understand what to do with the rsp page? |
I have this which I thought should be enough response/buffer: to-json ResObj response/set-header 'Content-type "application/json" | |
Claude 1-Dec-2010 [9256x2] | cheyenne for R3 exist ? |
cheyenne for R3 exist ? | |
Pekr 1-Dec-2010 [9258] | I think not. R3 has different port model. First the Uniserve engine would have to be ported. Then I am not sure, if Cheyenne uses DLL interface or not, but DLL interface is not present in R3 too, we've got Extension interface instead. And IIRC, one of main reasons why Doc did not port Cheyenne to R3 was - lack of multitasking/threading. So - unless RT brings tasking on-board, no Cheyenne for R3. |
Dockimbel 1-Dec-2010 [9259x2] | Graham: Chrome shows the JSON output while FF offers to download it. It's better to use a READ and a JSON decoder from the console to display JSON strings or a plugin like Firebug rather that rely on the browser. |
Cheyenne on R3: R3 lacks /Shell and /Library components that Cheyenne requires, and R3 is still far from being stable (both in design and implementation). Extension is also far from being a /Library drop-in replacement, I don't want to have to write and maintain per-platform C code, that defeats the purpose of using a (supposedly) cross-platform tool and it's, IMHO, a big regression from R2. Moreover, once concurrency support at low-level will be ready, a big part of Cheyenne would need a re-design and rewrite, so I prefer to wait for that for a real added value of a R3 port. | |
GrahamC 1-Dec-2010 [9261] | Doc, I've noticed also that Firefox seems to prioritize the extension over the content-type header. |
Kaj 1-Dec-2010 [9262] | My Firefox 3.5 wants to save the file. Isn't that a normal reaction for a bare json file? |
Dockimbel 1-Dec-2010 [9263] | Browsers saving a received content with a application/* mime type looks logical to me (unless requested from a JS XHR object). |
GrahamC 1-Dec-2010 [9264x2] | What I mean is that FF appears to value the RSP extension higher than the content-type header. |
in some instances | |
Kaj 1-Dec-2010 [9266] | I don't think that can be concluded from this case alone |
GrahamC 1-Dec-2010 [9267x2] | I have another page which sends application/pdf and it downloads the rsp page instead |
Or was it application/xfdf ... | |
Kaj 2-Dec-2010 [9269] | If it downloads the RSP, that would be a problem in the Cheyenne configuration, because it is always supposed to execute an RSP |
Oldes 2-Dec-2010 [9270] | Are you sure it's Cheyenne what is giving you the rsp page? |
GrahamC 2-Dec-2010 [9271] | What else? |
Dockimbel 2-Dec-2010 [9272] | it downloads the rsp page instead Do you mean that you get the RSP source or RSP output? |
GrahamC 2-Dec-2010 [9273] | RSP output |
Kaj 2-Dec-2010 [9274] | What's the problem, then? |
Dockimbel 2-Dec-2010 [9275] | Graham: you should try by adding the following header to your RSP script outputting a PDF file in order to display it in the browser : response/header 'Content-disposition {inline;filename="doc.pdf"} |
GrahamC 2-Dec-2010 [9276] | This is what I am sending HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: Cheyenne/0.9.20 Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:33:25 GMT Content-Length: 475 Content-Type: application/vnd.adobe.xfdf Connection: Keep-Alive Content-Encoding: deflate Set-Cookie: RSPSID=XESYTVZSEFSXPQHCTITGRDQG; path=/md; HttpOnly Cache-Control: private, max-age=0 Expires: -1 Firefox opens up the PDF referenced in the xfdf file that is downloaded. Chrome just downloads and saves the content. So maybe it's just Chrome's PDF "plugin" that doesn't understand what to do ... |
Dockimbel 3-Dec-2010 [9277] | Seems like a Chrome mime type mapping issue, see : http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=43bec1a85f6c7c9c&hl=en |
Pekr 3-Dec-2010 [9278x2] | Doc - I would like to ask about your argument of R3 missing DLL port - just shortly - what is Cheyenne using DLL interface for? And second - DLLs are generally not cross platform too, no? |
/shell is available, just less powerfull. /wait was added at least. /output is not there, but in such a case /wait is sufficient - you can redirect to file, and read it after the return from the call/wait .... it is just a note, I don't want to lobby for R3 port, that would be - preliminary :-) ... at least unless concurrency model is available, it would be worthless ... | |
Dockimbel 3-Dec-2010 [9280] | What is Cheyenne using DLL interface for? - UNIX: CGI support, running as user instead of root, management of external servers (like PHP) - Windows: CGI support, external servers (PHP), Desktop detection (for hiding working files), NT Services support, mutiple instances support, systray menu DLLs are generally not cross platform too, no? DLL are not, but the mappings to the DLL can be written easily in REBOL code, no need to go down to C. I see that as a big advantage in simplicity and maintainability. /shell is available, just less powerfull. Cheyenne requires /info, /output, /input and /error. /output is not there, but in such a case /wait is sufficient - you can redirect to file, and read it after the return from the call/wait If you want to have the slowest CGI support in the world, that's a good way for sure! |
older newer | first last |