World: r3wp

So, I guess it was just bad Rebol coding .. ( caused by my last minute 
desire to edit the rsp pages thru the web )

I use an absolute path to the config file now

instead of 

do %../../config.r
I'm now
do %/opt/fgw/Cheyenne/config.r

I don't understand why sometimes it would not execute the config 
file using relative paths

So with the old code, Cheyenne was hanging on each time ? (I guess 
after a few requests ?)

not hanging ... just crashing my rsp scripts at times

it would complain it could not find variables defined in config.r

Same behaviour with v0.9.18 and v0.9.19 ?

never tried 18

ok, so it looks like an issue with the DO mezz and the new sandboxing 
system.

Seems to be

sometimes even

do %/opt/fgw/Cheyenne/config.r

doesn't work consistently

so I have to 

f: read sometimes even

do %/opt/fgw/Cheyenne/config.r

doesn't work consistently

so I have to 

f: read  sometimes even

do %/opt/fgw/Cheyenne/config.r

doesn't work consistently

so I have to 

f: read %/opt/fgw/Cheyenne/config.r

and then

do f

??? what happened

Cosmic rays ? :-)

bouncy keyboard?

trapped in a time loop ?

it's that Haldron accelerator

they must have turned it back on again.

What prompted the changes in sandboxing and the do mezzanine?

Strange that you've been hit so far away on the other side of the 
planet...things have been turn upside down ?

Checking on google, nope, REBOL is still not the most use language...so 
it has to be the keyboard ;-).

matter is immaterial

Sanboxing: word clashes between several RSP webapps.

I think I used to see data from one rsp session appear in someone 
else's session

As long as you run only one webapp on Cheyenne, no problem, but I 
ran a dozen apps on some of our servers and I was facing several 
cases of name clashing.

RSP session corruption should have been eradicated since a year at 
least.

I think I have no updated my app for over a year!

If you notice such issue with the latest version, please report it 
asap, that's the worst thing that can happen.

have you tried encapping Cheyenne with the webapp?

Don't remember trying that.

Not sure that it can work with the current version. Cheyenne is using 
READ to get static and RSP files,  I have to change that to use the 
virtual file system in memory.

I see

I thought about doing that once, then I found that it requires some 
redesign work first on the virtual file system (%encap-fs.r) and 
also being sure that it won't affect performances when reading files 
from the filesystem in normal usage. I've planned to work on such 
feature for v1.0.

RESTfull systems use virtual pages don't they?

I guess that's different ... you're talking about having real pages 
stored in a virtual filing system

Precisely.

Doc.. Im just thinking scalability / benchmarking.  I plan on spending 
my spare time over the next number of months building a next gen 
webserver using Cheyenne as the core, and I want to make sure I don't 
hit a game killer 3 months in.


i posted earlier in the Rockstar group how superior Cheyenne is compared 
to vhosts and .htaccess.. night and day.

With R2, there's not much that can be done. The performances can 
be improved a little, that's all. You can still build clusters of 
Cheyenne server to sustain a higher load (obviously the front-end 
dispatcher would have to be done in C, there's several good ones 
in open source, or if you can afford, using an Alteon-like box). 
With a completed R3 (w/multithreading), Cheyenne could be a real 
competitor to Apache 2.

It is my personal belief that the HAL 9000 started life as a Cheyenne 
web server.

Yeah, you can round robin.. all sorts of options.. I think Apache 
handles 4000 concurrent connections?

Just a question about webapps... can we provide access to these also 
by basic authentication?

Suppose I implement the rest-mod, I want it be stateless so no cookies. 
 I want to pass the userid and password each time.  So, with no cookies, 
the user won't have access to the webapp.  So, does this mean I can't 
use a webapp with rest-mod?

Basic auth: it's not built-in but can be added in your RSP script.

or in mod-rest ?

right

If you're stateless, you don't need to use webapp (<=> session), 
simple RSP scripts would be enough, no ?

ok

yes, I think so.

just thinking thru the issues :)

included files can't contain RSP can they?