World: r4wp

http://www.rebol.net/wiki/Ports:_Synchronous_and_Asynchronous_Operations

Is this example supposed to work still?

 port: make port! http://www.rebol.com
   port/awake: func [event] [
       switch event/type [
           connect ready [
               write event/port [get %/]
           ]
           done [
               result: copy event/port
               return true
           ]
       ]
       false
   ]
   open port
   wait port

Return true in the 'done block does not exit the event loop

Since I didn't get any response, next try: What do you think about 
re-activating Rebol/Service?

if there is no license issue why not use zmq or another mature transport/protocol 
layer?. R/S was not bad but to instable for real apps. 

Of course this will raise the old question what should be mezz, what 
native etc. but adding some 100kb to the source for well proven
components shouldn't hurt too much.

with an additional lightweight scheme for user/authentication on 
the rebol site and the zmq workhorse lives on the C side, with all 
it's advantages (speed/thread).

For me the value was not the transport layer but the integration 
and the structure of the messaing, service look up etc.


IMO we shouldn't use a HTTP only transport layer for R/S and this 
layer shouldn't be done on the mezz level.

Robert - do you mean IOS? I still think, that it was kind of superior, 
although it lacked cross-reblet API. Can you see all those Google 
drives, SkyDrives? Cross device, cross user file syncing could be 
done agas ago with IOS (/Services), if RT would have some product 
manager. Pity for lost oportunity. I still think, that something 
like IOS kernel/layer could or even should be used for OpenME ...

Pekr: http://www.rebol.com/docs/services/

ah, those services. I wrote some doc about what do I don't like about 
them (naming conventions, other design issues (from my pov)), and 
Carl told me, that he is going to completly overhaul them once GUI 
is finished. That never happened though ....

Just wondering why I can't even get the old daytime protocol working 
from 3 years ago.

don't want o open this bottle now but another construction zone are 
the codecs like jpeg or zlib. at quick overview shows them very outdated. 
zlib e.g. from 1998 but don't know if carl has 

updated at least critical bugs. this has to be checked, the changelog 
is quite heavy until current. I like the Lua way here. the creators 
just take care about the real core, nothing else but 

this at a very agil and serious level, one reason the core is rock 
solid and very portable. the disadvantage of course is lack of a 
standard lib and a kind of wild growing but I guess this is
the price you have to pay for open source.

I would love to see rebol/services and asynchronous R3 tools as well.

I didn't use R/S except for testing/playing but I like to see it 
working. But I think we have other priorities like GUI, Android etc., 
R3 itself..

I once used it and even the existing version works quite well. It's 
very simple to use and straight forward. That's what I like about 
its design.

Well, my gripes were with the architecture a bit - all those functions 
with replicated names - do-servise, open-service, close-service. 
IIRC, old IOS used rsp-* functions, it was easy to list in help, 
and it used even rsp:// port scheme IIRC. Other thing I did not like 
much was, that the code seems to be plain pure parse code, but surely 
if the need is there, it could be abstracted. Carl admitted, that 
he would somehow change the design, no specific things I remember 
about his thoughts though ...

OTOH - I alway liked Rugby - dunno why. So some rpc mechanism might 
be welcomed. If R/S really worked, why not to use it?

IIRC some ppl reported some hangs in regards to R/S. Difficult to 
say, if ti was problematic R/S code itself, or some internal R3 networking 
bugs, which might disapper in later releases?

Does one have already explore the possibility to us SDL as a Rebol 
interface to OS graphic/sound/event interface ?

It seems there as many OSs supported now. Android, BSDs, Linuxes, 
OSX, Win32...

The DLL is only 132KB on Win32. Dunno an other platform!?

us=use

as=are

I create little Rebol/Services from time to time.  Would be nice 
to have a spec that makes it quick and easy.

SDL: I just tried an app using it with OSX. That's not really end-user 
friendly. Needs to be totally self-contained. No config etc. just 
download and start.

I still have some rebol services stuff in production, and always 
had high hopes for it. And while I would like a self-contained, dialected 
model, I also want to be able to easily use 0MQ as a transport and 
REST interfaces to map over services.

Is there any documentation on how to make an error!

There's this - https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/mezz/base-funcs.r

A simple error is still easy:
>> probe make error! "this is an error"
make error! [
    code: 800
    type: 'User
    id: 'message
    arg1: "this is an error"
    arg2: none
    arg3: none
    near: none
    where: none
]

Ok, I kept getting an error message when I tried it.

I'm trying to understand network schemes again, after a 3 year gap.

I've updated the time scheme and uploaded it to github here https://github.com/gchiu/Rebol3/blob/master/protocols/prot-time.r

As you can see, there's no error handling yet .. I thought there 
was a field in the scheme object to store errors but I've lost it.

Pavel used a read/lines to format the date in local date format. 
 I replaced that with write options

So, you can 

read time://time.nist.gov to get the date

or

write time://time.nist.gov [ GMT }

to get the date back in GMT.

We kept the http-error from Gab's prot-http.r until we figure out 
what to do about errors

Read/Write appears to be awkward -- is there any planned replacement 
for read/custom?  I'd suggest that read/args (or read/params) would 
make more sense than write in the above example...

Well, currently 'read doesn't have a custom refinement.  But I guess 
that can be added and then we can use that.

I know, I'm just hoping there will be...

But why would you want to diverge from R2's read/custom in favour 
of read/args?

Could be quite elegant used alongside codecs.

Args (params, whatever) is more specific. read/custom is a bit woolly.

where is 'read defined?

Just searching the sources now ...

https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/boot/actions.r

So, is it just a case of adding the /args or whatever refinement 
there?

Should get some concensus on this as it will affect all the schemes, 
and may need a little rewriting of the http scheme which uses write 
to pass options

I certainly see a read/args as being quite distinct in purpose from 
write.  I use it with my sandbox scheme (http://reb4.me/r/wrt) to 
filter directory contents.


 read/custom wrt://system/ [thru %.r] ; shows only rebol scripts in 
 this folder
	write wrt://system/ [thru %.r] ; means something else entirely

On the http scheme, it could be the difference between adding a query 
string to a GET request (read/custom), and adding post data on a 
POST/PUT request (write).

with read you're expecting some content back, with write, you're 
not

Should we even use write in the http scheme?