naviserver-devel — Developer discussion

[Re: Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?]

[<vl...@cr...>]

Fine with me



-------- Original Message --------
To: nav...@li...
From: Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...>
Subject: Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

On Friday 11 February 2005 07:01, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> Hmm, I don't know that it would be the best idea to start with what I
> (or Vlad) has.  My repo is aolserver-HEAD as of a few months ago,
> before the last set of major changes.
> 
> I'd rather split my stuff up and submit it separately, have you guys
> look it over before I apply it.  I'm sure there are errors you will
> spot and improvements you will suggest.  And I don't think it will be
> too hard to do.
> 
> Also, I might re-evaluate some of my decisions.  Obviously, when it's
> just for yourself you can be a little looser in how you do certain
> things, change APIs etc., because you know all the callers of the code
> or can decide that you're happy with the disruption it might cause.  I
> haven't done anything drastic!  But still, I'd want to be a little
> more careful and, the tracker provides a nice paper trail.

Good. So we could start with what is in the cvs for 4.0 now. 
I've checked out the 40_r10 out of CVS. I can import this clean,
rewind the ChangeLog and start from there. 

Here some rought guidelines we should follow
(feel free to change and/or add your own)

Any functional-level changes should be posted as RFE's and we should 
all agree on them before we apply them to the codebase.
Bugs we discover should be tracked in our bugbase and fixed accordingly.
It would be nice if we can post a bug-report to AS project as well.

Functional chages applied to the aolserver pendant project are to
be discussed between us shortly and then we can decide if this 
is something we might need to have or not.
Bugfixes applied to the aolserver pendant project could/should be
also fixed here. I think we all can share this work on as-can
basis.  

This is fair for the begining, I suppose. Later on, if we get more
people on the wagon, we can always work-out some other procedure.

Regarding CVS import: should I import the 4.0.10 state?

Cheers,
Zoran




-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
naviserver-devel mailing list
nav...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel

Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

On Friday 11 February 2005 07:01, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> Hmm, I don't know that it would be the best idea to start with what I
> (or Vlad) has.  My repo is aolserver-HEAD as of a few months ago,
> before the last set of major changes.
> 
> I'd rather split my stuff up and submit it separately, have you guys
> look it over before I apply it.  I'm sure there are errors you will
> spot and improvements you will suggest.  And I don't think it will be
> too hard to do.
> 
> Also, I might re-evaluate some of my decisions.  Obviously, when it's
> just for yourself you can be a little looser in how you do certain
> things, change APIs etc., because you know all the callers of the code
> or can decide that you're happy with the disruption it might cause.  I
> haven't done anything drastic!  But still, I'd want to be a little
> more careful and, the tracker provides a nice paper trail.

Good. So we could start with what is in the cvs for 4.0 now. 
I've checked out the 40_r10 out of CVS. I can import this clean,
rewind the ChangeLog and start from there. 

Here some rought guidelines we should follow
(feel free to change and/or add your own)

Any functional-level changes should be posted as RFE's and we should 
all agree on them before we apply them to the codebase.
Bugs we discover should be tracked in our bugbase and fixed accordingly.
It would be nice if we can post a bug-report to AS project as well.

Functional chages applied to the aolserver pendant project are to
be discussed between us shortly and then we can decide if this 
is something we might need to have or not.
Bugfixes applied to the aolserver pendant project could/should be
also fixed here. I think we all can share this work on as-can
basis.  

This is fair for the begining, I suppose. Later on, if we get more
people on the wagon, we can always work-out some other procedure.

Regarding CVS import: should I import the 4.0.10 state?

Cheers,
Zoran

[naviserver-devel] name ideas

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

Personally, I have no problem with naviserver but 
just in case we'd need to change it, what about:

naviengine
navihttpd
neohttpd

(to be continued...)

Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

[Vlad S. <vl...@cr...>]

Here is the tarball with my changes, i also removed root restriction 
from nsmain.

ftp://ftp.crystalballinc.com/pub/vlad/aolserver-4.0.10-vlad.tar.gz

We can put aside multiprotocol issue for a while and do other 
improvements, so once
Jim will come up with something or we will be ready to roll out our 
implementation we
put it into main codebase.

Anyway our both changes are more like hacks, at least mine is to keep 
main http stuff working, so
i will need to re-evaluate how i want to have multiprotocol now.

But having CVS up and running will give us something to work on

Stephen Deasey wrote:
> Hmm, I don't know that it would be the best idea to start with what I
> (or Vlad) has.  My repo is aolserver-HEAD as of a few months ago,
> before the last set of major changes.
> 
> I'd rather split my stuff up and submit it separately, have you guys
> look it over before I apply it.  I'm sure there are errors you will
> spot and improvements you will suggest.  And I don't think it will be
> too hard to do.
> 
> Also, I might re-evaluate some of my decisions.  Obviously, when it's
> just for yourself you can be a little looser in how you do certain
> things, change APIs etc., because you know all the callers of the code
> or can decide that you're happy with the disruption it might cause.  I
> haven't done anything drastic!  But still, I'd want to be a little
> more careful and, the tracker provides a nice paper trail.
> 
> I really think we're sort of stuck for the moment re the protocols
> stuff.  I'm hoping that what ever Jim is doing will be public soon so
> we can make some informed decisions.
> 
> If you do desperately want a tarball or something, I guess I can send
> that along.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:10:58 +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
> 
>>On Wednesday 09 February 2005 21:59, Stephen Deasey wrote:
>>
>>>The question was, do we start with 4.0 or 4.1?
>>>
>>>On reflection, I think 4.0 would be best.  Multiprotocol support is up
>>>in the air anyway until Jim makes a move, and 4.1 has bugs with adp
>>>etc.  4.0 will give us a stable codebase to start making changes.
>>>
>>>Merging 4.1 later will be good practice... :-)
>>
>>OK. This is the statement.
>>
>>I think one idea would be to get one of yours versions in the
>>CVS since you did change (I believe) much more in the code
>>than I did. I can then apply, after getting some RFE's in
>>(for the better tracking and cocumentation) and clearing it with
>>you, some of the minor things I have sitting.
>>
>>Maybe it would be also goog for you and Vlad to exchange tarballs
>>and look if there are any major collisions prior to commiting
>>the CVS.
>>
>>Zoran
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> naviserver-devel mailing list
> nav...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel

-- 
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
vl...@cr...
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/

Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

Hmm, I don't know that it would be the best idea to start with what I
(or Vlad) has.  My repo is aolserver-HEAD as of a few months ago,
before the last set of major changes.

I'd rather split my stuff up and submit it separately, have you guys
look it over before I apply it.  I'm sure there are errors you will
spot and improvements you will suggest.  And I don't think it will be
too hard to do.

Also, I might re-evaluate some of my decisions.  Obviously, when it's
just for yourself you can be a little looser in how you do certain
things, change APIs etc., because you know all the callers of the code
or can decide that you're happy with the disruption it might cause.  I
haven't done anything drastic!  But still, I'd want to be a little
more careful and, the tracker provides a nice paper trail.

I really think we're sort of stuck for the moment re the protocols
stuff.  I'm hoping that what ever Jim is doing will be public soon so
we can make some informed decisions.

If you do desperately want a tarball or something, I guess I can send
that along.



On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:10:58 +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 February 2005 21:59, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> > The question was, do we start with 4.0 or 4.1?
> >
> > On reflection, I think 4.0 would be best.  Multiprotocol support is up
> > in the air anyway until Jim makes a move, and 4.1 has bugs with adp
> > etc.  4.0 will give us a stable codebase to start making changes.
> >
> > Merging 4.1 later will be good practice... :-)
> 
> OK. This is the statement.
> 
> I think one idea would be to get one of yours versions in the
> CVS since you did change (I believe) much more in the code
> than I did. I can then apply, after getting some RFE's in
> (for the better tracking and cocumentation) and clearing it with
> you, some of the minor things I have sitting.
> 
> Maybe it would be also goog for you and Vlad to exchange tarballs
> and look if there are any major collisions prior to commiting
> the CVS.
> 
> Zoran
>

Re: [naviserver-devel] Include nscache in core?

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:34:53 +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
> So, we have first RFE: 1119257
> 
> Stephen, how far are you with the alternate
> cache implementation (you mentioned this in
> todo list already, IIRC)?

Great, you picked an easy one to start with  :-)

Kinda sucks my first contribution will be some untested work in
progress, but I'll attach what I have to that ticket and add a
comentary soon.

[naviserver-devel] Re: What's next? (was: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.)

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:33:07 +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic <zv...@ar...> wrote:
> 
> To show that I'm really not scared about the unpleasant work
> I will actually start on a completely different end: docs.
> I hate the current status more than anything else.
> I need html references and man pages as well. The only thing
> which I see could simplify this, is either Perl POD or Tcl doctools.
> I've tried the XML already and have abandoned it (too complex).
> Of course, I'm inclinded to doctools since already used by myself
> in the threading extension.
> Do you guys have anything against I go and collect the Tcl-API
> (ns_xxx) commands and give them doctools treatment? The C-API
> can wait for the moment...
> Or, do you have some other ideas/sugestions concerning the format?


You're a brave man, Zoran :-)

I have no experience with Tcl doctools, but as long as it's easy and
there is some kind of framework where it's obvious what I have to do
to add a couple of extra functions, that would be great.

Rather you than me!

Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

[Vlad S. <vl...@cr...>]

My Cox cable died last night, so i have no acces to the Internet from 
home till Monday, i hope, could be longer.

I have 4.0.10 version with new binder, modified ns_socklisten from 4.1 
and hacked UDP support.

All changes are transparent, webserver still works as usual, so we can 
start with it.

Multiprotocol there is as small as possible, but i started separatting 
Conn and Sock handling already,
being able to allocate Conn and submit data to it to be run by conn 
thread is my goal. In this case,
all drivers can be developed easily without hacking the core, even from 
Tcp Callback you can submit your
data to conn queue, just pass Driver which will handle the protocol.

The issue how i can get the sources from my home, not sure i have event 
floppies, will have to use laptop as
transfer media:-)))


Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 February 2005 21:59, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> 
>>The question was, do we start with 4.0 or 4.1?
>>
>>On reflection, I think 4.0 would be best.  Multiprotocol support is up
>>in the air anyway until Jim makes a move, and 4.1 has bugs with adp
>>etc.  4.0 will give us a stable codebase to start making changes.
>>
>>Merging 4.1 later will be good practice... :-)
> 
> 
> OK. This is the statement.
> 
> I think one idea would be to get one of yours versions in the 
> CVS since you did change (I believe) much more in the code 
> than I did. I can then apply, after getting some RFE's in 
> (for the better tracking and cocumentation) and clearing it with
> you, some of the minor things I have sitting.
> 
> Maybe it would be also goog for you and Vlad to exchange tarballs
> and look if there are any major collisions prior to commiting
> the CVS.
> 
> Zoran
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> naviserver-devel mailing list
> nav...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/naviserver-devel

-- 
Vlad Seryakov
571 262-8608 office
vl...@cr...
http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/

Re: [naviserver-devel] Re: List approval

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

On Wednesday 09 February 2005 22:04, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> Hmm, that didn't work .  Mailman experts feel free to step right up...

Well, it seems it did! Just posted a reply on one of the RFE's
and got thru without extra approval email sent to me (yet).

Zoran

Re: [naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

On Wednesday 09 February 2005 21:59, Stephen Deasey wrote:
> The question was, do we start with 4.0 or 4.1?
> 
> On reflection, I think 4.0 would be best.  Multiprotocol support is up
> in the air anyway until Jim makes a move, and 4.1 has bugs with adp
> etc.  4.0 will give us a stable codebase to start making changes.
> 
> Merging 4.1 later will be good practice... :-)

OK. This is the statement.

I think one idea would be to get one of yours versions in the 
CVS since you did change (I believe) much more in the code 
than I did. I can then apply, after getting some RFE's in 
(for the better tracking and cocumentation) and clearing it with
you, some of the minor things I have sitting.

Maybe it would be also goog for you and Vlad to exchange tarballs
and look if there are any major collisions prior to commiting
the CVS.

Zoran

[naviserver-devel] Re: List approval

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

Hmm, that didn't work .  Mailman experts feel free to step right up...


On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:21:29 -0700, Stephen Deasey <sd...@gm...> wrote:
> Ok, first order of business is to figure out how to get the tracker
> mailing list to stop spamming us with requests to approve every
> message!
> 
> There's some knobs to twiddle here:
> 
>   https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/admin/naviserver-tracker/privacy
> 
> I've added no...@so... to the "Addresses of members
> accepted for posting to this list without implicit approval
> requirement." section.  Let's see if that does it.
> 
> I want to express "No one at all can post to this list, except the
> tracker robot, which doesn't require approval"...
>

[naviserver-devel] Wich source to start from, 4.0 or 4.1?

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

The question was, do we start with 4.0 or 4.1?

On reflection, I think 4.0 would be best.  Multiprotocol support is up
in the air anyway until Jim makes a move, and 4.1 has bugs with adp
etc.  4.0 will give us a stable codebase to start making changes.

Merging 4.1 later will be good practice... :-)

[naviserver-devel] List approval

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

Ok, first order of business is to figure out how to get the tracker
mailing list to stop spamming us with requests to approve every
message!

There's some knobs to twiddle here:

  https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/admin/naviserver-tracker/privacy

I've added no...@so... to the "Addresses of members
accepted for posting to this list without implicit approval
requirement." section.  Let's see if that does it.

I want to express "No one at all can post to this list, except the
tracker robot, which doesn't require approval"...

[naviserver-devel] Include nscache in core?

[Zoran V. <zv...@ar...>]

So, we have first RFE: 1119257

Stephen, how far are you with the alternate 
cache implementation (you mentioned this in
todo list already, IIRC)?

Zoran