World: r3wp
[!REBOL3 Schemes] Implementors guide
older newer | first last |
Pavel 21-Dec-2010 [2262] | There is missing the "; make something synchronous here" part :-) |
Kaj 21-Dec-2010 [2263] | I think Christian Ensel's ODBC scheme is the other current example |
Pavel 23-Dec-2010 [2264] | Interresting, when I write to global variable at awake level everything works OK. Somebody give me a hint how to send received data from awake to actor level please. |
Steeve 23-Dec-2010 [2265] | An awake functions deals with events. An event has a port property. An actor takes a port as input parameter. Here the link. If the port contains locals vars, they can both (the awake and the actor) access the port's locals. |
Pavel 23-Dec-2010 [2266] | And from subport (tcp) to scheme level port? Can low level awake write directly to scheme locals? |
Steeve 24-Dec-2010 [2267] | Sure, they both share a cross reference in their locals, like in R2. |
Pavel 27-Dec-2010 [2268] | Finally I've got it, so now I have a time scheme returning (RFC 868) integer number of seconds from 1-Jan-1900. I tried to define refinement /date to return well formated date!. But there is no possibility to define different refinement except of hadcoded one so I have to use /lines for that, silly. |
ChristianE 27-Dec-2010 [2269] | Would you mind to show the interface/api or the actual implementation of your time scheme? You're probably (mis-)using the /LINES refinement of READ, but maybe you can instead use WRITE for that ... |
Pavel 28-Dec-2010 [2270] | ChristianE the idea arises from the fact the time server send only response and close immediately, so I only implemented Read actor. The problem is that you may not create a new refinement but only redefine one existing. time scheme needs a little polishing and will be posted to script library. Anyway you are right the only possibility how to controll the scheme in wider borders is to write a command block and wait for reply. Another not so generall would be write into port state context and use this as switch for read actor. |
Pavel 7-Jan-2011 [2271] | prot-time.r was uploaded to rebol.org, now works only synchronous way ie: read time://your.time.server, server must be RFC 868 (port 37). basically it returns number of UTC seconds from 1-Jan-1900/0:00:00. When refinement /lines it returns well formated local time (using local timezone) |
Pavel 11-Jan-2011 [2272] | Graham, 1. where you put the R3 schemes (if so)? wik.is is definitely down. 2. I have to say your daytime scheme doesn't work for me (functionality commented out I think). 3. you can add prot-time into your collection if you like to. |
GrahamC 11-Jan-2011 [2273x2] | Pavel, I would not be surprised. I have not looked at this stuff for over a year. Yes, wik.is is now defunct and so my site is gone. See https://github.com/gchiu/Rebol3/tree/master/protocols |
I'll look at the schemes again when R3 goes beta. | |
Kaj 11-Jan-2011 [2275] | Ah, and R3 goes beta when it has enough schemes... |
BrianH 11-Jan-2011 [2276x3] | R3 may go beta before any additional schemes are added - "enough" is a matter of opinion, and for core functionality, HTTP is enough (only needed for CHAT and UPGRADE). HTTP should be improved before beta though. |
Sorry, TCP, DNS, probably UDP, and files/directories are also needed for beta. | |
If you need additional schemes for your own projects, contributions are welcome. | |
Kaj 11-Jan-2011 [2279x3] | Nevermind, I was just being sarcastic :-) |
As far as I'm concerned, Core should be stamped 3.0 Release after another run through the bug list. It's basically only View that is not presentable yet | |
My current gripes are mostly with the documentation | |
BrianH 12-Jan-2011 [2282] | We have been doing beta triage on the bug list already :) |
Kaj 12-Jan-2011 [2283x2] | Cool! |
Hope I'm not adding new ones too fast ;-) | |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2285x2] | Kaj - you misunderstood. What BrianH imo means is just general note, not any recent activity :-) Last R3 activity of Carl is almost 3 months old imo ... |
You should not forget, that we plan to come into beta for almost 2 years :-) | |
Kaj 12-Jan-2011 [2287] | I know, but the bug database is being worked on right now |
Oldes 12-Jan-2011 [2288] | is it? |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2289] | No, it isn't - we just add new tickets imo. Changelog does not show any changes, nor Carl's notes, etc. |
Kaj 12-Jan-2011 [2290x3] | Brian is working on it, and if he says Carl is working towards a beta, I believe him |
I also believe it because, when I first ported my CMS to R3 almost two years ago, it didn't fully work, so I decided not to use it; and now that I have ported it again I expected the same, but it has turned out that I'm using the R3 version now | |
Further, I can see that most of the important restructurings have been done last year, and the source publication has been sorted out, so I am now able to fill in missing pieces with extensions, with a reasonable certainty that the interface is stable | |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2293] | That is understandable, but it does not contradict my claim, that "being doing beta triage" is an still ongoing process, not something entirely new :-) |
Kaj 12-Jan-2011 [2294] | In other words, Core is usable, extensible and published now (since a few months) |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2295] | Yeah, maybe Carl should put a beta moniker on it ASAP. |
Kaj 12-Jan-2011 [2296] | That's what I suggested |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2297] | we can be in beta another xy months, then do few RCs, and then 3.0. |
Pavel 12-Jan-2011 [2298] | when I try to evt: make event! [type: 'custom code: 1] I got: == make event! [ type: 'custom offset: 1x0 ] ie code dissappears and the value is merged into offset curiously is it intended? |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2299] | I am not sure making custom events is supported? |
Pavel 12-Jan-2011 [2300] | minimally it is included in "official" http scheme |
Pekr 12-Jan-2011 [2301] | ah ... well then ... maybe Cyphre know more about custom events ... |
Steeve 12-Jan-2011 [2302] | you can create objects instead of event |
Pavel 12-Jan-2011 [2303] | is it possible to slip object instead of event! ? |
Steeve 12-Jan-2011 [2304x2] | slip ? |
Event handlers are basically functions, they can accept event! or object if they have the same properties. | |
GrahamC 4-Mar-2011 [2306x2] | I am wondering how one would implement the IMAP4 IDLE command .. see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2177 It seems that once one sends an IDLE command, the server might then send a response back any time up to the server's inactivity timeout. |
which would lead to the client timing out on a tcp port | |
BrianH 8-Oct-2011 [2308x2] | I've been starting to give some thought about how you would make an ODBC dialect more powerful by using R3-style scheme tricks. Has anyone else come up with some good ideas? |
For instance, do we really need to support the manual connection pooling that R2 does? By this I mean requiring you to open a database port and then doing a FIRST on that port to get the actual connection. Shouldn't it be possible to just open a port in one step, and have the connection pooling be internal or otherwise hidden? | |
Kaj 8-Oct-2011 [2310] | It did strike me as a kludge |
BrianH 8-Oct-2011 [2311] | Just came up with a way to maintain R2 compatibility and still support the advantages of the R3 style. Just working through the details. |
older newer | first last |