World: r3wp

I emailed him.... hope he has time to spare from his Java development 
to fix it :)

Gab's async protocol, the awake event takes two parameters
Romano's atcp protocol, the awake event takes one parameter ....

Oldes, I get braces when string length > 50
>> mold loop 51 [append "" "."]
== {{...................................................}}

Graham, though, tls:// never worked in REBOL so... :)

Carl keeps saying otherwise :)

does anyone use str-enc-utils.r? I'm not sure if I have found a bug.

actually there is not just a bug, but also a hang.

>> str-enc-utils/iso-8859-15-to-utf-8 "aø"
== "" ; bad
>> str-enc-utils/iso-8859-15-to-utf-8 "ø"
== "ø" ; good
>> str-enc-utils/iso-8859-1-to-utf-8 "aø" ; hangs

Link plz...

http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=str-enc-utils.r

hmm.. that one is newer. I have to test that one. one sec.

the hang is gone, but the other bug is still present.

nope, hang is not gone, just required some different letters to trigger 
it.

ascii: charset [#"^(00)" - #"^(7F)"]

ascii-rule: [
      copy transfer [ascii some ascii] ( ; <- problem
        head insert tail output-string transfer
      )
    ]


This rule does not look correct. I replaced [ascii some ascii] with 
[some ascii] and now it works.

This is present in two locations in the script, but I can't be entirely 
sure if my fix is correct.

Thanks, Henrik. Could you possibly let me know the binary of the 
strings that you saw the bug with. I suspect I am seeing something 
different in AltME.

PeterWood:

#{61F8}

I was having problems with beer being disconnected while doing any 
significant http work, and using Gab's async http seems to have solved 
it for me.

Graham, I may have a little more time to work with it soon (not sure 
yet). Can you make it working without docs?

Sure ... I wrote up an example

cool

http://rebol.wik.is/Protocols/Test-async-http.r

uses the same ahttp with a small change ... see http://github.com/gchiu/Rebol2/blob/master/Protocols/prot-ahttp.r

thanks

In the handler, there should be a check to see if the event is an 
error ...and then close the port

seems redirects are not supported

Yes, that's correct

I don't need redirects since I'm downloading from Amazon S3 ...

What's needed to support redirects?  Grab the new url and open that 
instead?

I'm not sure, but something must be returned from the server.

Perhaps close the sub-port and re-open using the redirected url?

Looks like that's what the standard prot-http does.  It checks for 
circular references as well

Perhaps we can persuade Gab to take a break from his Rebol compiler 
to complete the protocol :)

Which reminds me .. what will it take to add proxy support to R3's 
 tcp ?

It seems there are more bugs in the string conversion utilities. 
the problem also exists when converting from UFT8 to ISO-8859-1.

never mind, it was a part I had forgotten to fix.

Graham, Gab.: you are right, never checked that MOLD works like that 
on longer strings. I will remember that now.

But anyway... when you need to do call on unknown files, you should 
use more soficticated way.
Using just:
	rejoin [{"} to-local-file file {"}]

I consider as as security thread and I would never used it like that. 
And it does not metter if using MOLD or not.

Not to sound doom and gloom, but I see little evidence that we will 
get a single platform we can all write to so we can focus on a free 
market war of "best products" as opposed to a private war between 
the biggest companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc.).

We are pawns in THEIR game until we have standards enforced.

Oldes, I am using this to create a parameter to another program ... 
there's no security risk.

One never knows:)
What about something like that:

>> file: {^" call ^"something else } rejoin [{call "} to-local-file 
file {"}]
== {call "" call "something else "}

I look at the file extensions and create the batch file based on 
that .. .so nothing nasty is going to happen :)

Anyone see any value in creating async network protocols for R2 based 
on Gab's async-protocol?  It really seems if we are going to be using 
R2 for much longer still.

if so, they must be properly documented.

If so what?

It seems to me we need a contingency plan for the possible failure 
of R3 ( all IT projects have high failure rates and R3 is no different 
).  And so we need to develop R2 as much as we can.

The reasoning would be that existing R2 software that won't be moved 
to R2 can move to an async model.

eh?

won't be moved to R3. sorry.

Not only that but we all need to get experience with developing apps 
that use async protocols

yes, true