World: r4wp

Well, my gripes were with the architecture a bit - all those functions 
with replicated names - do-servise, open-service, close-service. 
IIRC, old IOS used rsp-* functions, it was easy to list in help, 
and it used even rsp:// port scheme IIRC. Other thing I did not like 
much was, that the code seems to be plain pure parse code, but surely 
if the need is there, it could be abstracted. Carl admitted, that 
he would somehow change the design, no specific things I remember 
about his thoughts though ...

OTOH - I alway liked Rugby - dunno why. So some rpc mechanism might 
be welcomed. If R/S really worked, why not to use it?

IIRC some ppl reported some hangs in regards to R/S. Difficult to 
say, if ti was problematic R/S code itself, or some internal R3 networking 
bugs, which might disapper in later releases?

Does one have already explore the possibility to us SDL as a Rebol 
interface to OS graphic/sound/event interface ?

It seems there as many OSs supported now. Android, BSDs, Linuxes, 
OSX, Win32...

The DLL is only 132KB on Win32. Dunno an other platform!?

us=use

as=are

I create little Rebol/Services from time to time.  Would be nice 
to have a spec that makes it quick and easy.

SDL: I just tried an app using it with OSX. That's not really end-user 
friendly. Needs to be totally self-contained. No config etc. just 
download and start.

I still have some rebol services stuff in production, and always 
had high hopes for it. And while I would like a self-contained, dialected 
model, I also want to be able to easily use 0MQ as a transport and 
REST interfaces to map over services.

Is there any documentation on how to make an error!

There's this - https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/mezz/base-funcs.r

A simple error is still easy:
>> probe make error! "this is an error"
make error! [
    code: 800
    type: 'User
    id: 'message
    arg1: "this is an error"
    arg2: none
    arg3: none
    near: none
    where: none
]

Ok, I kept getting an error message when I tried it.

I'm trying to understand network schemes again, after a 3 year gap.

I've updated the time scheme and uploaded it to github here https://github.com/gchiu/Rebol3/blob/master/protocols/prot-time.r

As you can see, there's no error handling yet .. I thought there 
was a field in the scheme object to store errors but I've lost it.

Pavel used a read/lines to format the date in local date format. 
 I replaced that with write options

So, you can 

read time://time.nist.gov to get the date

or

write time://time.nist.gov [ GMT }

to get the date back in GMT.

We kept the http-error from Gab's prot-http.r until we figure out 
what to do about errors

Read/Write appears to be awkward -- is there any planned replacement 
for read/custom?  I'd suggest that read/args (or read/params) would 
make more sense than write in the above example...

Well, currently 'read doesn't have a custom refinement.  But I guess 
that can be added and then we can use that.

I know, I'm just hoping there will be...

But why would you want to diverge from R2's read/custom in favour 
of read/args?

Could be quite elegant used alongside codecs.

Args (params, whatever) is more specific. read/custom is a bit woolly.

where is 'read defined?

Just searching the sources now ...

https://github.com/rebol/r3/blob/master/src/boot/actions.r

So, is it just a case of adding the /args or whatever refinement 
there?

Should get some concensus on this as it will affect all the schemes, 
and may need a little rewriting of the http scheme which uses write 
to pass options

I certainly see a read/args as being quite distinct in purpose from 
write.  I use it with my sandbox scheme (http://reb4.me/r/wrt) to 
filter directory contents.


 read/custom wrt://system/ [thru %.r] ; shows only rebol scripts in 
 this folder
	write wrt://system/ [thru %.r] ; means something else entirely

On the http scheme, it could be the difference between adding a query 
string to a GET request (read/custom), and adding post data on a 
POST/PUT request (write).

with read you're expecting some content back, with write, you're 
not

Should we even use write in the http scheme?

I'm appreciative of a return value from write. For example, on a 
hypothetical Twitter scheme, write twitter:// "My Tweet" would return 
the new tweet id.

Similarly most http write operations return a value of some kind.

so, the http scheme should stick to read for sync ops

I see read/get as synonymous, write/post or put, delete/delete.

and HEAD ?

info?

the thing is that GET sends information and gets something back. 
 Same as POST.  What's the difference?

Intent.

Content.

But are we expecting the casual user to understand this?

I believe it's more consistent.

A casual user of http, for sure : )

So, if you're reading a HTTP form, you can either use GET or POST 
 ....

So, what is the user supposed to do ... use READ or WRITE ?