r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server

btiffin
23-Oct-2007
[2225]
Motivated to add counter-measures.  Activated the PoL (Proof of Life) 
code.  I'll watch the logs for a while but I think the rbbs.r on 
peoplecards should now be closer to immune from the robot spammer 
that tagged me a few months back.


Terry; Might be a good idea.  Promoting Cheyenne, promoting Semantic 
Database and building something rebols can use for a forum all at 
the same time.  Many birds, few stones.
Graham
23-Oct-2007
[2226]
Cheyenne has captcha built in, and that's what I use
Terry
24-Oct-2007
[2227]
Where's our man Doc these days?
Pekr
24-Oct-2007
[2228x2]
working hard on projects?
One thing is clear - with R3 we have to get new blood, or we'll die. 
Successfull rebollers are moved to other projects, and they nearly 
disappear from community life ...
Steeve
24-Oct-2007
[2230x3]
not sure of that, i think  rebolers are waiting for R3 and stopped 
all R2 projects
that's why it's so urgent to pop up a release (even an alpha one)
Everyone has already given his opinion but I repeat anyway. 
It is damaging not to open the aplha. 
Rebolers are sick of waiting.
Terry
24-Oct-2007
[2233]
Not the group for this, but the R3 license will decide if it flies 
or not.
Gabriele
25-Oct-2007
[2234]
i don't think there are many people who stopped r2 projects... and 
surely not nenad.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2235]
Hi guys, my current mission is ending, so I'll be back fulltime on 
Cheyenne in a couple of days. I have a v0.9.17 close to release.
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2236x2]
Seen any problems with odbc and encapped Cheyenne??
I get all sorts of cursor problems
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2238]
Developers stopping their work on R2 waiting for R3 are just loosing 
time. I bet that R2 will still be the stable REBOL in 6 months (maybe 
even more). For professional work, stick to R2, until R3 reaches 
a stable level.
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2239x2]
wrong group
is the new version contain any bug fixes or is it justs control panel 
enhancements?
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2241]
Hi Graham, never tested Cheyenne with ODBC. Do you see differences 
between encapped version and source version running on rebcmd.exe 
?
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2242]
Yes.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2243]
Bugfixes and new features. Control panel is not ready for prime time.
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2244]
I encapped Cheyenne to run my patient portal and the data returned 
from a sql query is all corrupted
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2245]
did you try to : probe copy db ? (and see the raw result returned 
by the db port)
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2246x3]
I am wondering if anyone can reproduce this .. or whether it's just 
me!
No.  I wasn't sure where to begin to debug this.
and I had a deadline to meet .. so I just used the source code version
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2249]
are you using the 'do-sql command ?
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2250]
yes
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2251]
are you on XP or Vista ?
Graham
25-Oct-2007
[2252x2]
2003
Haven't tested under XP or Vista yet.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2254]
'do-sql is using a trick to determine if the scheme is using a native 
driver (RT's) or a user-defined one. It's testing db-port/handler 
: none means native driver, other value means user-defined. This 
was working ok with the native MySQL driver, could you tell me if 
this test is also ok for a odbc:// driver ? (just open an odbc connection 
in console mode and tell me the value of db-port/handler)
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2255]
Hey Doc, welcome back.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2256]
Hi Terry, back for 5 min only, I was on the road to bed ;-)
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2257]
Can I just drop the embed module into the latest Cheynne to make 
it work?
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2258]
Yes, it should work (IIRC, you have to comment all other modules, 
see the doc in the embed-demo.r sample).
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2259x4]
mod-embed.r
Ok.. cool.
It's working great by the way.
If you have 3 minutes left, can you explain the shared space between 
cheyenne and uniserve please.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2263x2]
Which one ? uniserve/shared ?
Uniserve is just the underlying network layer for Cheyenne.
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2265]
You once mentioned the need to use the 'shared' something or other 
for communication between uniserve modules and cheyenne.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2266]
It also provides the IPC support.
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2267]
International Political Corruption?
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2268]
If only...I would be a rich man ;-). Inter Process Communication
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2269x3]
:)
Actually, i have a response from a web page pushing data to a uniserve 
service.. so kinda close.. just wondering if there's a preferred 
method.
One last thing.. how do you feel about incorporating cheyenne into 
a GPL product?
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2272]
Does the uniserve service share the same REBOL VM than Cheyenne (or 
are they running on 2 different processes ?)
Terry
25-Oct-2007
[2273]
It was two, then I dropped the other and it worked .. woohoo.
Dockimbel
25-Oct-2007
[2274]
Cheyenne is BSD, don't know how it can fit in a GPL product, but 
I guess there's no problem doing that (at least for me).