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

World: r3wp

[!REBOL3]

Sunanda
14-Oct-2010
[5305]
Does R3 somewhere have the equivalent of
   READ/CUSTOM .... [POST...]
yet?
I'd like to read a URL as a POST rather than a GET.
GrahamC
14-Oct-2010
[5306]
Yes it does
Henrik
15-Oct-2010
[5307]
looks like Carl will not only be attending Amiwest, but exhibiting 
as well.
Sunanda
15-Oct-2010
[5308]
Thanks Graham....Now, can I have a clue what the equivalent is!?
Pekr
15-Oct-2010
[5309]
Henrik - what is he going to exhibit? R3 on Amiga? Or R3 in general?
Henrik
15-Oct-2010
[5310]
Don't know. He is just listed as an exhibitor. Maybe he'll bring 
wine. :-)
Maxim
15-Oct-2010
[5311]
I think he'll try to peddle is "rare" Amiga items...   ;-)
GrahamC
15-Oct-2010
[5312]
result: write http://yourhost.com/cgi-bin/myscript.cgi{Posted data}

See http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Scheme:_HTTP
Sunanda
15-Oct-2010
[5313]
Thanks Graham.
Initially, that sounds lllogical -- doing a write to read a URL.

But I guess it makes sense -- as POST is supposed to cause an update 
action of some sort at the server end.
GrahamC
15-Oct-2010
[5314x2]
I'm not sure of the logic .. I would think that 'write should be 
used for non idempotent actions but that's not how it is done.
Anyway, 'read is a straight 'GET and write allows custom headers
Kaj
15-Oct-2010
[5316]
I always thought HTTP GET is incredibly anti-intuitive when used 
to send form data. Mapping write to POST feels a lot more logical
GrahamC
15-Oct-2010
[5317x3]
I haven't looked to see how it handles PUT, and DELETE with parameters
now whether PUT can stream a file off the filesystem
now => nor
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5320]
That was a heck of a coding and debugging session we just got through. 
Alpha 108 is going to be really cool :)
Maxim
19-Oct-2010
[5321]
have a lot of things changed wrt the host-kit structure and its files?
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5322]
I don't know about that yet, I just worked on core builds. Afaik 
there are no major changes to the host kit APIs in this release. 
Only major system structure and semantic changes in R3 itself. And 
a new module system with all sorts of fun tricks available. And some 
fun minor changes to some natives and mezzanines, plus some major 
changes to a few other mezzanines.
Maxim
19-Oct-2010
[5323]
I really would like to have some feedback from Carl about the Host-lib 
suggestions I did in R3 chat.
PeterWood
19-Oct-2010
[5324]
What are the registered filetypes in the more recent builds? What 
is the consequence of a file type being registered? Is there any 
documentation?
Maxim
19-Oct-2010
[5325]
I don't think the A108 R3 installs yet.
Oldes
19-Oct-2010
[5326]
I use .r3 for REBOL3 scripts and .r for R2.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5327]
Let's hope we get an A108 hostkit at all ...
Ladislav
19-Oct-2010
[5328]
I think, that the majority of REBOL scripts are .r and they work 
in both R2 as well as in R3
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5329]
If someone close to Carl could ask him to release A108 as both binary 
and hostkit, that would be much appreciated.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5330x3]
That is the plan, Andreas.
But we are doing a core release first, to let people hammer on it 
to make sure the system changes work. Then we will likely release 
a host kit, or one for the a109 release.
(drumroll...)
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5333]
OK, so it's not the plan, just a binary release.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5334]
...first. Your concerns (and those of others) have been noted and 
passed along. But the plan will be set based on the stability of 
the core release.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5335]
What good reason is there for not doing hostkit releases side-by-side 
with the binary releases?
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5336]
When the release focusses on host kit changes, that makes sense. 
This release completely revamps the R3 internal structure. It might 
not work at all, let alone work in a host kit.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5337x2]
Which is a pity.
Namely, that Carl still seems to use tons of different codebases 
for the different releases.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5339x2]
Why is it a pity that we would want to isolate testing to that which 
changed?
For experimental releases especially.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5341x3]
If nothing changed in the hostkit, then an updated hostkit release 
is mostly a matter of bundling updated r3 core libs.
So the isolation argument is moot.
On the contrary, there are bugs in CC which seem to only occur with 
binaries built from the hostkit. So you have a wider base of testing.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5344]
Updated R3 core libs which *may not work*. Once we are sure that 
the core works, we can adapt the hostkit to match. For that matter, 
we made changes that might break existing extensions (I think they 
won't).
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5345]
If the RT binaries were built from the same sources, that would not 
be possible.
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5346]
They are.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5347x4]
Then the scenario you describe is not possible.
Either the hostkit is already adapted for the RT built to work.
Or it is not, and RT builts from separate sources.
builds*
BrianH
19-Oct-2010
[5351x2]
The R3 core libs might not work, because A108 core might not work.
Most of the host kit problems that end users find and Rt doesn't 
are compiler or platform related, not due to source differences.
Andreas
19-Oct-2010
[5353x2]
Then your testing point is moot.
Just release pre-built binaries along with the hostkit, and let users 
test however they wish.