World: r3wp

we could rename this group to !REBOL3 protocols ... we have REBOL3 
back now ...

Shame ... I quite like this group as is, ,but probably !REBOL3 network 
schemes is a better title.

Here's a reference for ftp client implementors http://cr.yp.to/ftp.html

Note that Bernstein recommends only using Passive mode as Active 
FTP is a security risk.

I can't even remember ever having to use active FTP, because passive 
didn't work. It's usually always passive that you have to use.

Certainly will make it easier to only support passive as then we 
don't have to open a listen port for an incoming server connection

Andreas, you have this 


		open?: funct [port [port!]] [
			open? port/state/subport
		]
recursive function

I guess it croaks after the 2nd call

This isn't of much use yet .. http://rebol.wik.is/Rebol3/Schemes/Ftp

Can login ... and switch to passive mode ...

It's not syncing correctly ... must be my state machine is confused

And wonder why I need to issue multiple reads to get all the data 
....

graham, afaic open? should work as it is. as the actor functions 
are contained within a block, the bounding is left to make-scheme. 
and make-scheme leaves the inner open? bound to the system version

actually, that's a rather nice property of the whole actors-as-a-block 
model, that each call to read/write/etc within an actor function 
calls the system version of the word, not the actor version

on the other, things look a bit confusing, at first sight. open? 
being a prime example of this

the bounding = binding

Just tidied up my ftp skeleton ... why is that a wrote doesn't trigger 
the next event ?

hm, no idea, looks sane to me

I was afraid of that ..

well, I can fix it by putting a wait 1 in the wrote event

sounds like an awful hack :)

so you're struck after write ftp ["PASV"] ?

not stuck ... just at console

I have to a read after each write

yeah, i do that in the pop3 proto now as well

wouldn't even get the 'wrote event, otherwise

wait, i'll upload my current pop3 version

so, with the wait 1 in the wrote block  I can do this

cmd: open ftp://ftp.compkarori.com
read cmd
write cmd [ "PWD" ]
read cmd
write cmd [ "PASV" ]
read cmd

i do the following: in the write actor, i do write + read

in the read actor, i do a wait

the wait in the read actor returns once the awake handler in the 
tcp subport returns true

here's yours http://rebol.wik.is/Rebol3/Schemes/Pop

here's the current version: http://bolka.at/share/prot-pop3.r[temporary 
url]

which is heavily restructured, now also allowing you to use custom 
commands directly

write/lines pop3 ["TOP 1 10"]
to-string read pop3

hehe .. you changed your mind!

sure :)

and i even tested it with a win32 rebol3 :)

and one of the things i observed is that the tcp port does not seem 
to get re-scheduled after a write

i.e. i do a write on the tcp port, later on i wait on the tcp port, 
but no the wrote event never occurs

which lead me to conclude that if i want any network interaction 
to occur on the tcp port, be it sending data that was buffered with 
write earlier, or listening for incoming data, i have to tell R3 
that by doing a read on the tcp port

how does this work?

switch event/type bind

the _only_ exception seems to be when the tcp port is not yet connected

then a read on the not-connected port raises an error, so in this 
case a simple wait is enough

Yeah .. I think that is what I am observing ...

(i'll get to the bind in a second, bear with me)

the second observation is that the return value of an awake handler 
seems to have no effect at all on scheduling

but influences when a WAIT on the port will return

a WAIT on the tcp port returns once the awake handler returns true; 
for any other return value, the WAIT keeps hanging on

so in essence: write only buffers data to be sent, read schedules 
a port so that it awakes on events, wait blocks until awake returns 
true

You can only exit the awake handler by returning true ...