World: r3wp

It's about automatic quits by the SECURE functionality

yeah, and you can catch it as an error. It stay relevant.

Yeah, but you can't analyse the error, because you always get 101

Are you sure ? accordingly the doc, we got :

>> secure [eval [throw 50000]]
>> loop 100000 [next "test"]
** Access error: security violation: eval
** Where: loop
** Near: loop 100000 [next "test"]


So, you can decipher the error message and send back the appropriate 
quit/return code

security violation: eval

You can also do it in a try statement and check the error codes.

Ah, seems this limitation only applies then if you let R3 quit without 
further processing

Bad news - looks like WebSockets will be disabled in Firefox 4 due 
to security concerns.


http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Bludice/~3/S6Lw15UdA2I/websocket-security

Same in Chrome: http://codereview.chromium.org/5643005/

Aargh

I saw the news yesterday for FF4. The badly written RFC for ws was 
alarming since the beginning, this kind of design defect doesn't 
surprise me much, but it's such a waste...I hope the new CONNECT-based 
workaround will be adopted rapidly.

Google can't hire designers as good as work for REBOL for free ;-)

When can we exepect Cheyenne like NGINX ? What is missing ? Cheyenne 
is the best product to promote REBOL !?

Why? I'm using Cheyenne with Nginx... Nginx for serving static content, 
dynamic by Cheyenne. I use slogan:  "when east meets west".

Ok,  they claimed that "Nginx now hosts nearly 6.55% (13.5M) of all 
domains worldwide."
When for Cheyenne ?

There's a possibility that users might require certificates to access 
my app ... can that be done with Cheyenne and something else?

Client certificates?

So, what would you have to use server side to manage and authenticate 
the certificates?

Sorry, that was a question, not a suggestion. Do you actually want 
to authenticate based on client certificates?

Yes

Use SSL: http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/securitymonkey/howto-securing-a-website-with-client-ssl-certificates-11500

Or use Nginx as a reverse proxy to Cheyenne.

So, I don't need Apache then?

I'm currently using Cheyenne ... and stunnel to provide SSL

Looks like I could still use stunnel .. and put all the certificates 
in a directory and disconnect users who don't present a certificate

I might have a few hundred users ... so hopefully this can cope.

So, I guess I'm asking if anyone has experience with this and was 
it straight forward?

Hundred users total, or concurrently?

total

I'm looking to implement a nationwide registry for patients taking 
biologics

Shouldn't be much of a problem performance wise

worst case scenario - 60 concurrent users

How many requests would they make within a minute?

I wouldn't have thought that many ... of course I'm just guessing!

Well, that determines your scalability concerns

60 Concurrent users is a lot - except if they're idling for five 
minutes between every request

I guess I can just get a bigger VM if it comes down to it ... :) 
 Yes, I expect they'll be idling most of the time

So, I guess the next question is .. how does one determine if the 
server is overloaded?

read the logs and ??

Your customers will be on the phone yelling at you :-)

If it's a Unix box, you use tools such as uptime, top and htop

Windows 2003 server on Ec2

I gave them my cellphone so they can pay the charges for yelling 
at me!

heh... the freemed guy was asking if I can rewrite my drug interaction 
portal in php and python!

Hmm... can Magic on Apache run similar RSP code as Cheyenne ?  Wonder 
how hard it would be to port from Cheyenne to Magic

Magic!'s concept is the reverse of RSP

reverse?

I've never used it ... just know it exists

Dockimbel can give you advices.

There's QM from ChrisRG but not sure it reached a official release.