Pike-devel

pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se

2 participants
3046 discussions

Countdown to new 7.8 release
by H. William Welliver III 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

Hello all, I'd like to start the gears turning on the process that will eventually spit out a new 7.8 release. Since I'm new to the process, I'll probably need Peter to show me the ropes. Hopefully he'll see this note and will throw together a brief guide for me and anyone else interested in the release process. While waiting for the process to be revealed to me, I've started sifting through the commit log to get a rough draft of the release notes. There will probably be a need for some clarification, so expect to be getting a note from me in the near future. Finally, you should take this message as notice of an impending change freeze on the 7.8 tree. If you have any undelivered changes, please get them in within the next week. Once the release process kicks off, I'd like to limit commits to the 7.8 tree to build/traffic-light related fixes. As always, any comments or suggestions are welcome! Bill

4 3

kqueue based file event notification and the backend
by Bill Welliver 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

I've taken a cue from Arne's inotify module and have started working on one for kqueue based systems. The code basically works but suffers from a (imho) major drawback: it's not integrated with the Pike backend. The inotify code slides nicely into the backend, primarily because inotify presents itself as a standard fd with a read data event to indicate events. kqueue, however, uses different event types monitored by kqueue. Right now, a secondary kqueue loop can be run in a thread to wait for events, but that seems pretty ugly to me. I'd like to find a better approach. An alternate approach might be to hook a second, immediate-timeout call to kqueue() into the backend, similar to the GTK or ObjectiveC module. That's a little better, as at least the end user sees a more consistent approach to asynchronous events. Internally, I think it probably at least less efficient, with other possible drawbacks. I think the nicest approach would be to modify the kqueue backend so that it can register VNODE, PROC and SIGNAL filters and shunt them off to an appropriate handler. That, however, means that the backend would be split again (creating a KqueueBackend or similar), with the new implementation having different features. If anyone's interested in looking at the code, it's available here: https://bitbucket.org/hww3/public_system_kqueue/ I should note that I've commited some changes today away from my development box, so it's likely that the last few revisions have errors in them. Does anyone else have thoughts about these approaches (or have an alternate one?) Perhaps I've missed something obvious... it wouldn't be the first time! Best, Bill

3 3

Filesystem.Monitor and inotify
by H. William Welliver III 28 Nov '11

28 Nov '11

Did I hear correctly that someone had modified Filesystem.Monitor to use methods other than polling? Can anyone fill me in on what's been done in that department (including code)? I have 7.9.5 and it doesn't appear to be present… Best, Bill

2 1

pike.ida.liu.se offline?
by Ryan 18 Nov '11

18 Nov '11

I am unable to get to the pike homepage to download the latest bits and read the documents. Anyone have any information?

5 11

Re: [patch] allow multiple parts of a multipart form with the same name
by Erik Dahl 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

Maybe you should add the mime type as well? Something like (not tested): if(variables[part->disp_params->name+".mimetype"] && arrayp(variables[part->disp_params->name+".mimetype"])) variables[part->disp_params->name+".mimetype"] += ({part->disp_params->mimetype}); /erik This is a response to: http://lists.lysator.liu.se/pipermail/pike-devel/2011-October/014499.html

1 0

More of a Roxen question
by Coen Schalkwijk 10 Nov '11

10 Nov '11

Hi there, I have a Roxen specific question: we had a server breakdown and had to install Roxen on a new (virtual) server. All seemed well untill we found out we missed a lot of Roxen user accounts. In the mean time we recreated one that was absolutely neccesary, but there are more in need of a restore. Now the question is: can I safely import the(/a) user export? Will the recreated user be safely overwritten or will there occur issues based on user ids. The recreated user is used, by ourselves, based on user name. Thank you for your time & effort! -- Met vriendelijke groet / With kind regards / Mit besten Grüßen, Coen Schalkwijk Software Engineer coen.schalkwijk(a)rtl.nl <mailto:coen.schalkwijk@rtl.nl> coen(a)rtlinteractief.nl <mailto:coen@rtlinteractief.nl> +31 (0)35 671 8915 MSN - rtl(a)navelpluis.nl Werkt niet op vrijdag

1 0

Pike conference 2011 - Pike @ Roxen
by Marcus Agehall (nu med K-m�rkt fastighet och ny elcentral) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum 20 Oct '11

20 Oct '11

I'll do my best to be there. Although I can't promise it matches my travel schedule. :(

1 0

[patch] better HTTP response codes
by Bill Welliver 14 Oct '11

14 Oct '11

I'm not sure if someone else has contributed something similar, but here's a patch for Protocols.HTTP.Server.Request that provides more informative response codes for almost all of the HTTP responses in widespread use (present in RFCs or not). --- lib/modules/Protocols.pmod/HTTP.pmod/Server.pmod/Request.pike.orig Wed Dec 9 16:32:20 2009 +++ lib/modules/Protocols.pmod/HTTP.pmod/Server.pmod/Request.pike Wed Oct 12 16:46:19 2011 @@ -31,6 +31,79 @@ // finalize +constant errors= +([ + // Informational + 100:"100 Continue", + 101:"101 Switching Protocols", + 102:"102 Processing", // WebDAV + 103:"103 Checkpoint", + 122:"122 Request-URI too long", // a non standard IE7 error + + // Successful + 200:"200 OK", + 201:"201 Created, URI follows", + 202:"202 Accepted", + 203:"203 Non-Authoritative Information", + 204:"204 No Content", + 205:"205 Reset Content", + 206:"206 Partial Content", // Byte ranges + 207:"207 Multi-Status", // WebDAV + 226:"226 IM Used", // RFC 3229 + + // Redirection + 300:"300 Moved", + 301:"301 Permanent Relocation", + 302:"302 Found", // a potential alligator swamp. for HTTP/1.1, use 303/307. + 303:"303 See Other", // temporary redirect, any POST data is received, use GET. + 304:"304 Not Modified", + 305:"305 Use Proxy", + 306:"306 Switch Proxy", // Deprecated + 307:"307 Temporary Redirect", // retry request elsewhere, don't change method. + 308:"308 Resume Incomplete", + + // Client Error + 400:"400 Bad Request", + 401:"401 Access denied", + 402:"402 Payment Required", + 403:"403 Forbidden", + 404:"404 No such file or directory.", + 405:"405 Method not allowed", + 406:"406 Not Acceptable", + 407:"407 Proxy authorization needed", + 408:"408 Request timeout", + 409:"409 Conflict", + 410:"410 Gone", + 411:"411 Length Required", + 412:"412 Precondition Failed", + 413:"413 Request Entity Too Large", + 414:"414 Request-URI Too Large", + 415:"415 Unsupported Media Type", + 416:"416 Requested range not statisfiable", + 417:"417 Expectation Failed", + 418:"418 I'm a teapot", // Ha ha + 422:"422 Unprocessable Entity", // WebDAV + 423:"423 Locked", // WebDAV + 424:"424 Failed Dependency", // WebDAV + 425:"425 Unordered Collection", // RFC3648 + 426:"426 Upgrade Required", // RFC2817 + + // Internal Server Errors + 500:"500 Internal Server Error.", + 501:"501 Not Implemented", + 502:"502 Bad Gateway", + 503:"503 Service unavailable", + 504:"504 Gateway Timeout", + 505:"505 HTTP Version Not Supported", + 506:"506 Variant Also Negotiates", // RFC2295 + 507:"507 Insufficient Storage", // WebDAV / RFC4918 + 509:"509 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded", // An Apache defined extension in popular use + 510:"510 Not Extended", // RFC2774 + 598:"598 Network read timeout error", // Informal extension used by some HTTP proxies + 599:"599 Network connect timeout error", // Informal extension used by some HTTP proxies +]); + + int max_request_size = 0; void set_max_request_size(int size) @@ -475,15 +548,12 @@ m->error=206; } break; - case 302: - res+=({protocol+" 302 TEMPORARY REDIRECT"}); - break; - case 304: - res+=({protocol+" 304 Not Modified"}); - break; default: // better error names? - res+=({protocol+" "+m->error+" ERROR"}); + if(errors[(int)m->error]) + res+=({protocol+" " + errors[(int)m->error]}); + else + res+=({protocol+" "+m->error+" ERROR"}); break; }

4 5

[patch] allow multiple parts of a multipart form with the same name
by H. William Welliver III 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Here's another patch that I'm a little less sure about. Currently, if you submit a multipart form that has more than 1 part with a given name, only the last part is included in the request object (the others are overwritten). I've run into a few applications that expect such a submission to be treated as an array (for example, multiple files uploaded this way is part of the HTML5 'spec'). The following patch enables that behavior. --- lib/modules/Protocols.pmod/HTTP.pmod/Server.pmod/Request.pike.orig 2011-10-07 01:32:42.000000000 -0400 +++ lib/modules/Protocols.pmod/HTTP.pmod/Server.pmod/Request.pike 2011-10-12 21:38:23.000000000 -0400 @@ -388,18 +387,9 @@ foreach(messg->body_parts, object part) { if(part->disp_params->filename) { + if(variables[part->disp_params->name] && !arrayp(variables[part->disp_params->name])) + variables[part->disp_params->name] = ({ variables[part->disp_params->name] }); + if(variables[part->disp_params->name] && arrayp(variables[part->disp_params->name])) + variables[part->disp_params->name] += ({part->getdata()}); + else variables[part->disp_params->name]=part->getdata(); + + if(variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"] && !arrayp(variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"])) + variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"] = ({ variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"] }); + if(variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"] && arrayp(variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"])) + variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"] += ({part->disp_params->filename}); + else + variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"]= part->disp_params->filename; - variables[part->disp_params->name]=part->getdata(); - variables[part->disp_params->name+".filename"]= - part->disp_params->filename; } else variables[part->disp_params->name] = part->getdata(); }

1 0

multiset difference incorrect?
by Martin Bähr 12 Oct '11

12 Oct '11

hi, according to http://topdefinitions.com/multisets-and-their-operations/ the difference between multisets is defined as: The difference of two multisets A and B, is a multiset such that the multiplicity of an element is equal to the multiplicity of an element in A minus multiplicity of an element in B, if the difference is +ve, and it is equal to 0 if the difference is 0 and –ve. It is denoted by A-B. e.g. A={l,l,m,m,m,n,n} B={l,m,m,n,n,n} A-B={l,m} however in pike: > multiset A =(< "l","l","m","m","m","n","n">); > multiset B =(< "l","m","m","n","n","n">); > A-B; Result: (< >) greetings, martin.

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Pike-devel