World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7718] | I've never tried NTLM .. suggest you contact doc |
MikeL 8-Apr-2011 [7719] | Thanks. Doc and I have had a series of discussions on it where he has helped me out. In particular was Cheyenne being able to pull IIS information authenticated to a Windows domain for presentation from Cheyenne. We got to ... some more detailed / dedicated Doc work needed because NTLM is tricky. That's not an option now because Red is a priority for everyone including me. But if Curl enables it ... |
Dockimbel 8-Apr-2011 [7720x2] | NTLM is a hard to support, even using OS API. Making my NTLM implementation work in all cases would probably take days (or even weeks) of research, tests and debugging. |
A shorter road might be to port Python NTLM libs to REBOL. | |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7722] | cURL supports NTLM |
Gregg 8-Apr-2011 [7723] | There are two sides to R3 adoption for me. First is the available features. I greatly prefer to have basic schemes (HTTP and FTP in particular) built in. A basic GUI system is also important to me, but I can use R3 for non-GUI things without that. The second, and more important, aspect is stability and robustness. Is the module model stable, is it robust? Will tasks ever work? Are there outstanding core bugs that will prove problematic if they are never fixed. That is, if RT never did any more work on R3, could I use it for production work? |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7724x2] | That's a matter of how much risk you are willing to take. R3 works quite well, but if you do hit a problem, it will be impossible to fix |
Obviously, if work stops here, tasks will never work | |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7726x2] | The module model is stable for now, and has no current errors in the mezzanine code, though OSX has some errors in RESOLVE. When tasks are supported better there will need to be some minor underlying changes, but not many because the module system was written with the proposed multitasking model in mind. The module list hasn't been locked down from a security standpoint, though its layout was designed with that in mind. There are still bugs and missing features in the (UN)PROTECT functions that are blocking the locking down of R3, so don't run untrusted code yet. |
The OSX builds keep running into compiler bugs which are tough to resolve. It's an ongoing process. | |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7728] | What's untrusted code? Stuff I wrote ? :) |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7729] | Stuff written by random people you don't know, like user extension scripts; R3 can't sandbox yet. For that matter, SECURE has been turned off since a109. |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7730x2] | Can we compile R3 with our own schemes yet? |
And if R3 stops now ... is there any advantage to R3 over R2 ? | |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7732] | Sure, either mezzanine or host-embedded extensions. And loadable extensions too, while SECURE isn't working. |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7733] | And this is the main advantage over r2? |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7734x2] | As for advantages, YMMV. For me, the improved PARSE, binary conversions that make sense, the map! type, the module system, the faster and more powerful loops, better error handling, and the increased consistency make R3 much easier to use. The extension model makes it more powerful - I always hated R2's library access model. But I don't do much GUI work in REBOL. R2 has database access that I use pretty often, and HTTPS support which I use rarely but it's important when I do. I've backported the most important missing functions from R3 to R2 in mezzanine form, though there is still some stuff I miss. |
The improvements in 2.7.8 were pretty significant, so R2 is getting a lot more useful. I would love to have some kind of proper dialected binary conversion facility in R3 that could be ported back to R2, preferably compiled (generating conversion functions) - that would make it possible to have code like Red's compiler a lot more portable between R2 and R3, no explicit struct! use needed. | |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7736x2] | So, where to from here? |
I can't invest any time in R3 without a fully working GUI and https | |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7738] | That is the case for a lot of people. |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7739] | Between a rock and a hard place |
Gregg 8-Apr-2011 [7740] | With a rope dangling just out of reach. |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7741] | That's good, then we can't hang ourselves ;-) |
Gregg 8-Apr-2011 [7742] | :-) |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7743] | we wait 6 months or however it takes for Carl to get back to work? |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7744] | Gallow's humour, we call that in Dutch |
Gregg 8-Apr-2011 [7745] | Same here Kaj. |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7746] | Ah, didn't know that's also an English expression |
Gregg 8-Apr-2011 [7747] | 0MQ is a wedge for me, between the rock and hard place. If I can use that for messaging, pieces can be (re)written in any language. |
Kaj 8-Apr-2011 [7748] | Yes |
Geomol 8-Apr-2011 [7749] | And also a danish: galge humor where galge = gallows |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7750] | Enough of the me toos! |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7751] | I've already finished the major projects I was working on in R3 itself, like the module system; I can't start more without the protection bugs being fixed. My next stuff is all docs (modules and PARSE) and addons (that dialected binary conversion, plus maybe some schemes). What I really want to work on is Android, but I can start that work using Red for now. |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7752x2] | I guess cURL solves the https |
So, it's really waiting for the GUI team | |
Gregg 8-Apr-2011 [7754] | It sort of solves it for me. We're spoiled with everything built into R2. |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7755] | Has anyone tried making an R3 host that doesn't follow the standard program model? For instance, an application plugin? |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7756x5] | Ok, to make it more usable .. we need to get the schemes finished |
Any other show stoppers for the majority of users? | |
Was someone going to tackle the opendbx drivers? | |
We already have odbc, and a possible sqlite ... | |
I presume Linux users will want a native mysql driver | |
BrianH 8-Apr-2011 [7761] | Is the ODBC stuff in port scheme form, or a collection of functions? |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7762x2] | It's a scheme |
but presumably not usable from linux | |
Andreas 8-Apr-2011 [7764] | maybe w/unixodbc |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7765] | Not as far as I know ... |
Andreas 8-Apr-2011 [7766] | as for show stoppers, resolve has a serious crash bug on all platforms, not only osx |
GrahamC 8-Apr-2011 [7767] | Maybe we need to get Carl to fix the real show stoppers |
older newer | first last |