Webware for Python

Has anyone thought about capturing stdout so that servlets can use print 
instead of self.writeln(...)

def awake(self, trans):
   self.oldStdout = sys.stdout
   sys.stdout = trans.response().streamOut()

def writeContent(self):
   a = 'hello'
   b = 'world'
   print '<p>', a, b, '</p>'

def sleep(self, trans):
   sys.stdout = self.oldStdout

Actually stdout should probably be captured when the servlet get invoked 
so that it can capture any exceptions and make sure that stdout gets 
restored.

Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?

On Wednesday 19 March 2003 04:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
> I've committed large changes to Application.py (a core class) to CVS.
> This could introduce bugs into lots of code, far and wide.  It currently
> changes semantics somewhat as well, but ultimately I hope to have
> complete backward compatibility.
>
> CVS has been very stable previously.  You should not expect that, at
> least for the next couple weeks.  0.8 is has all the features that CVS
> does (prior to these commits), so use that if you want stability.  But
> if you don't mind bugs, please help me test!
>
> I've also moved NewThreadedAppServer over to ThreadedAppServer, at long
> last.  The old ThreadedAppServer is gone, but I'm relatively confident
> that NewThreadedAppServer is a good replacement; it's been tested for
> quite a while.
>
>   Ian
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Does your code think in ink?
> You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing.
> What are you waiting for?
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en
> _______________________________________________
> Webware-discuss mailing list
> Webware-discuss@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 09:24, Jim Bucher wrote:
> Has anyone thought about capturing stdout so that servlets can use print 
> instead of self.writeln(...)

It's not threadsafe, so we can't do that.

  Ian

On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 12:46, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?

Hmm... maybe so.  Except there aren't significant differences between
the pre-checkin code in CVS and Webware 0.8.  I want this to become the
mainline Webware, no sitting on the fence like with
NewThreadedAppServer.  Adding instability after a release is part of a
normal development cycle, I just want people to be aware of that cycle
(since we'd been stalled in releases for so long).

  Ian

On Wednesday 19 March 2003 12:11, Ian Bicking wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-19 at 12:46, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> > Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?
>
> Hmm... maybe so.  Except there aren't significant differences between
> the pre-checkin code in CVS and Webware 0.8.  I want this to become the
> mainline Webware, no sitting on the fence like with
> NewThreadedAppServer.  Adding instability after a release is part of a
> normal development cycle, I just want people to be aware of that cycle
> (since we'd been stalled in releases for so long).

Yeah, that makes sense.  If there's a need for some bug fixes to be released 
on the 0.8 codebase a branch can be made from it.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tavis Rudd wrote:

> Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?

I gotta throw a +1 onto this fire :) I synced the other night to the CVS
head having not seen this message and was bummed when it barfed on me.
Since I was actively working on something else, I didn't bother to chase
down the barf, but reverted to 0.8. But I agree with Tavis... radical work
should (IMHO) go on in a dev branch until it's "close" to stable. Some
oddball corner cases are okay, but general stability is desirable in the
mainline.


> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 04:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
> >
> > CVS has been very stable previously.  You should not expect that, at
> > least for the next couple weeks.  0.8 is has all the features that CVS
> > does (prior to these commits), so use that if you want stability.  But
> > if you don't mind bugs, please help me test!

On Saturday 22 March 2003 17:06, Tripp Lilley wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> > Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?
>
> I gotta throw a +1 onto this fire :) I synced the other night to the CVS
> head having not seen this message and was bummed when it barfed on me.
> Since I was actively working on something else, I didn't bother to chase
> down the barf, but reverted to 0.8. But I agree with Tavis... radical work
> should (IMHO) go on in a dev branch until it's "close" to stable. Some
> oddball corner cases are okay, but general stability is desirable in the
> mainline.

Considering the history of several refactorings of WebKit's core over the last 
two years - the developers eventually lost interest in them or became too 
busy to finish them off and push for a release - I agree with Ian.  If his 
refactoring of Application.py is going to be in the next release, it should 
be in the main branch. Otherwise it'll never get the exposure and serious 
testing required.

> > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 04:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > > CVS has been very stable previously.  You should not expect that, at
> > > least for the next couple weeks.  0.8 is has all the features that CVS
> > > does (prior to these commits), so use that if you want stability.  But
> > > if you don't mind bugs, please help me test!

I'm new to this group, but not to distributed development - in my
experience, normally the cvs HEAD is unstable, and stable branches get
formed off of it, providing release platforms.  Good features and
bugfixes get backported to stable branches if someone cares enough to do
so, ususally by a release maintenance team, not the dev team.

Of course, every project forms it's own culture, and it looks like
running critical webware servers directly out of CVS is the norm for
some people.  I'm forced to wonder how you maintain release control,
perform defect tracking, prove code coverage and regression testing and
ensure code stability with this policy, though.  Aren't these issues
what releases and release branches are for?

On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 20:16, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> On Saturday 22 March 2003 17:06, Tripp Lilley wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> > > Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?
> >
> > I gotta throw a +1 onto this fire :) I synced the other night to the CVS
> > head having not seen this message and was bummed when it barfed on me.
> > Since I was actively working on something else, I didn't bother to chase
> > down the barf, but reverted to 0.8. But I agree with Tavis... radical work
> > should (IMHO) go on in a dev branch until it's "close" to stable. Some
> > oddball corner cases are okay, but general stability is desirable in the
> > mainline.
> 
> Considering the history of several refactorings of WebKit's core over the last 
> two years - the developers eventually lost interest in them or became too 
> busy to finish them off and push for a release - I agree with Ian.  If his 
> refactoring of Application.py is going to be in the next release, it should 
> be in the main branch. Otherwise it'll never get the exposure and serious 
> testing required.
> 
> > > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 04:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > > > CVS has been very stable previously.  You should not expect that, at
> > > > least for the next couple weeks.  0.8 is has all the features that CVS
> > > > does (prior to these commits), so use that if you want stability.  But
> > > > if you don't mind bugs, please help me test!
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! 
> Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and 
> the chance of winning an Apple iPod:
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en
> _______________________________________________
> Webware-discuss mailing list
> Webware-discuss@...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss

I don't think this made it to the list. Since it's support of an
argument I made, I feel the need to ensure rdg gets proper
representation. :)

On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 21:00, rdg wrote:
> >From my open source experience, I must aggree w/ Scott Russell
> on the CVS HEAD being unstable.
> 
> -rdg
> 
> On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 03:23, Scott Russell wrote:
> > I'm new to this group, but not to distributed development - in my
> > experience, normally the cvs HEAD is unstable, and stable branches get
> > formed off of it, providing release platforms.  Good features and
> > bugfixes get backported to stable branches if someone cares enough to do
> > so, ususally by a release maintenance team, not the dev team.
> > 
> > Of course, every project forms it's own culture, and it looks like
> > running critical webware servers directly out of CVS is the norm for
> > some people.  I'm forced to wonder how you maintain release control,
> > perform defect tracking, prove code coverage and regression testing and
> > ensure code stability with this policy, though.  Aren't these issues
> > what releases and release branches are for?
> > 
> > On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 20:16, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> > > On Saturday 22 March 2003 17:06, Tripp Lilley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> > > > > Why don't you create a temporary development branch of the cvs?
> > > >
> > > > I gotta throw a +1 onto this fire :) I synced the other night to the CVS
> > > > head having not seen this message and was bummed when it barfed on me.
> > > > Since I was actively working on something else, I didn't bother to chase
> > > > down the barf, but reverted to 0.8. But I agree with Tavis... radical work
> > > > should (IMHO) go on in a dev branch until it's "close" to stable. Some
> > > > oddball corner cases are okay, but general stability is desirable in the
> > > > mainline.
> > > 
> > > Considering the history of several refactorings of WebKit's core over the last 
> > > two years - the developers eventually lost interest in them or became too 
> > > busy to finish them off and push for a release - I agree with Ian.  If his 
> > > refactoring of Application.py is going to be in the next release, it should 
> > > be in the main branch. Otherwise it'll never get the exposure and serious 
> > > testing required.
> > > 
> > > > > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 04:04, Ian Bicking wrote:
> > > > > > CVS has been very stable previously.  You should not expect that, at
> > > > > > least for the next couple weeks.  0.8 is has all the features that CVS
> > > > > > does (prior to these commits), so use that if you want stability.  But
> > > > > > if you don't mind bugs, please help me test!