ftnpl-develop Mailing List for Perl for FTN Systems (Page 6)
Brought to you by:
jame
Menu
▾
▴
ftnpl-develop — Developing Perl for FTN systems
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(51) |
Sep
(33) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(8) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(6) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Robert C. <JC...@te...> - 2001-08-24 17:20:44
|
Russ,
No problem, as long as we have permission from the original author... =
Just be sure to put it into the scripts directory...<g>
I think I've seen you mention it before; and if you posted a copy =
of it, I think I captured a copy of it. Haven't really had a chance to =
do anything with it, though...
Is it that one for using the file info in a (bbbs) descript.ion file =
to generate the html pages? If so, one mod I can think of would to also =
be able to use files.bbs type files; I use both kinds because of the =
programs I use, so both would be useful... =20
Note also that if that is the one; i.e., if it is BBBS related =
(even if it also can handle files.bbs files), that would be the kind of =
thing I'd like to hatch out in the BBBSUTILS file echo...
>>> Russ Johnson <ru...@di...> 08/24/01 02:02AM >>>
I'm also going to add another file to our repository. It creates the =
HTML=20
pages for my file areas. I didn't write it, but I have the authors=20
permission to distribute it as I see fit. Some of what he did in there=20
would be directly portable to pkt2html.
|
|
From: Robert C. <JC...@te...> - 2001-08-24 17:14:30
|
Russ,
Well, you're right that there's not much difference outputing text & =
outputing html; html is just a special form of text, after all... I'm =
just anticipating things a bit too much; if it really ends up becoming =
too much, it could always be split then. But you're right, that's not =
likely to be any time soon....
Jame
>>> Russ Johnson <ru...@di...> 08/24/01 02:02AM >>>
I was planning on adding HTML to pkt2txt, as an option. I see a problem =
if=20
the code branches. What I think would happen is that features will get=20
added to one script, and then have to be ported to the other script. If =
it=20
becomes pkt2html, I'd like to keep the option to generate plain txt. =
Since=20
the only real difference will be the output, I don't think it makes =
much=20
sense to maintain two scripts that will be 80% identical code. On the =
other=20
hand, if the end goal is to have a package of scripts, then it might be =
a=20
good idea to modularize. But that would be down the road.
|
|
From: Robert C. <JC...@te...> - 2001-08-24 17:07:15
|
Hi Russ! I'll do that this weekend... Initially, it'll only be the single = letter parameters; that's what I'm familiar with implementing so far, so = it should be fairly simple to put in. Once that's done, though, I will = add to the ToDo list about adding the code to use the long paramters, like = " --toss". Those kind of parameters are far more flexible, & that could = be useful...=20 >>> Russ Johnson <ru...@di...> 08/24/01 02:02AM >>> I'd like to see what you do with the getopt module. |
|
From: Russ J. <ru...@di...> - 2001-08-24 06:03:13
|
Well, I've completed the first working version that doesn't overwrite it's previous runs. I've also put that version up on sourceforge, and I've set it up on my system to toss messages, in parallel to bbbs. I'm sure there's an easier way to get the high message number, and if we do eventually put messages in mySQL, that will be moot, since you can simply have an auto-increment counting field. I'd like to see what you do with the getopt module. I was planning on adding HTML to pkt2txt, as an option. I see a problem if the code branches. What I think would happen is that features will get added to one script, and then have to be ported to the other script. If it becomes pkt2html, I'd like to keep the option to generate plain txt. Since the only real difference will be the output, I don't think it makes much sense to maintain two scripts that will be 80% identical code. On the other hand, if the end goal is to have a package of scripts, then it might be a good idea to modularize. But that would be down the road. I'm also going to add another file to our repository. It creates the HTML pages for my file areas. I didn't write it, but I have the authors permission to distribute it as I see fit. Some of what he did in there would be directly portable to pkt2html. Oh, and I do have the importing of files down with CVS. Today was quite a learning experience. Since I have a code of the cvs tree here, things are synchronized. Assuming you update pkt2txt prior to my working on it again, would I just download a new copy prior to working on it again? Should we be "locking" the file when we're actively working on things? I'd hate to overwrite what you add or vice versa. At 01:06 AM 8/24/2001 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Russ! > > > OK, I've got a good working copy now. I'm really going to be working on >the > > message counting stuff. > > You work on that (since I still haven't quite figured out how you're >doing it...<g>); I want to fix/enhance the command line parameters for it, >by changing it over to useing the Getopt module... I got it working on my >scripts, so I've had practise...<g> > > > >I'd like to at least get to a "read only" version soon that writes web >pages. > > Oh, I agree; that would be quite useful! But it does bring up the >question of how to do that? I see two main ways of doing it; one way >would be to extend the existing pkt2txt.pl script once it's working, & the >other would be make a separate script once the pkt2txt.pl script is working >fairly well... > > My preference would be to make it a new script, starting off from the >working pkt2txt.pl script, & call it pkt2html.pl. (And I would like to do >the initial import of it, if you don't mind...<g>) Several reasons for >keeping 'em separate, but one main reason for me is I have a preference for >programs that does one well defined thing as well as possible... True, >basically there isn't a lot of difference between outputting text & >outputting html; but in actual usage there would be & I think that they >would develop in different ways... For instance, I see the pkt2txt.pl >script as more of a diagnostic tool than as a production tool; whereas >something like a pkt2html.pl script would definitly be a production tool... >And with different purposes, they would see different development... > > > > >Jame > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Ftnpl-develop mailing list >Ftn...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ftnpl-develop Russ Johnson Stargate Online http://www.dimstar.net telnet://telnet.dimstar.net ICQ: 3739685 |
|
From: Robert J. C. <rj...@ho...> - 2001-08-24 05:08:23
|
Hi Russ!
> OK, I've got a good working copy now. I'm really going to be working on
the
> message counting stuff.
You work on that (since I still haven't quite figured out how you're
doing it...<g>); I want to fix/enhance the command line parameters for it,
by changing it over to useing the Getopt module... I got it working on my
scripts, so I've had practise...<g>
>I'd like to at least get to a "read only" version soon that writes web
pages.
Oh, I agree; that would be quite useful! But it does bring up the
question of how to do that? I see two main ways of doing it; one way
would be to extend the existing pkt2txt.pl script once it's working, & the
other would be make a separate script once the pkt2txt.pl script is working
fairly well...
My preference would be to make it a new script, starting off from the
working pkt2txt.pl script, & call it pkt2html.pl. (And I would like to do
the initial import of it, if you don't mind...<g>) Several reasons for
keeping 'em separate, but one main reason for me is I have a preference for
programs that does one well defined thing as well as possible... True,
basically there isn't a lot of difference between outputting text &
outputting html; but in actual usage there would be & I think that they
would develop in different ways... For instance, I see the pkt2txt.pl
script as more of a diagnostic tool than as a production tool; whereas
something like a pkt2html.pl script would definitly be a production tool...
And with different purposes, they would see different development...
Jame
|
