On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 05:28:34PM +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>
> *BSD has kqueues, but I'm lacking information, if there are any
> kqueue utils like inotifywait(1).
>
FAM or a FAM-line solution is the only portable solution. gamin, iirc,
uses inotify on linux and kqueues on BSD.
Hello,
On 22.02.2012 16:35, Troels Henriksen wrote:
Yes, inotify would be the mechanism by which file changes are
discovered, although it's not portable. I'm not certain what the
Suckless Zeitgeist is on using Linux-only facilities.
AFAIK there are some *BSD users who also use suckless tools.
On 22 February 2012 11:50, Peter Hartman wrote:
> It is pretty silly to write surf, which rides on the Hotspur of
> webkit-gtk, and then not utilize whatever cookie apparatus that
> Hotspur offers. Of course, if it offers us a really shitty cookie
> apparatus, then what is EVEN MORE silly is to w
It is pretty silly to write surf, which rides on the Hotspur of
webkit-gtk, and then not utilize whatever cookie apparatus that
Hotspur offers. Of course, if it offers us a really shitty cookie
apparatus, then what is EVEN MORE silly is to write our own. Instead,
we should disable cookies in surf
Greeetings.
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 22 February 2012 10:35, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>
>>> On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>> What about inotify? I am now thinking that would be the best. Instead
>>> of loading the file on every request, we cou
On 22 February 2012 10:35, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>>
On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> But, since we write out to th
Calvin Morrison writes:
> On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>
>>> On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
Calvin Morrison writes:
> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
> inefficient to b
On 22 February 2012 09:17, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>>
But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
inefficient to be constantly re reading (and repars
Calvin Morrison writes:
> On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
>> Calvin Morrison writes:
>>
>>> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
>>> inefficient to be constantly re reading (and reparsing) the entire
>>> cookie file?
>>
>> Yes, but we're alread
On 22 February 2012 08:36, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Calvin Morrison writes:
>
>> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
>> inefficient to be constantly re reading (and reparsing) the entire
>> cookie file?
>
> Yes, but we're already doing that, so apparently it's no
Calvin Morrison writes:
> But, since we write out to the cookie jar frequently, wouldn't it be
> inefficient to be constantly re reading (and reparsing) the entire
> cookie file?
Yes, but we're already doing that, so apparently it's not a big problem
in practice.
--
\ Troels
/\ Henriksen
On 22 February 2012 05:33, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> Peter Hartman writes:
>
>>> This is still is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because in Surf as it is now, cookies are not readable from Javascript,
> and an increasing number of sites rely on this being
> userbase of < 5 ;)
the age of understatement...
-- s.
Peter Hartman writes:
>> This is stil is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
>
> Why?
Because in Surf as it is now, cookies are not readable from Javascript,
and an increasing number of sites rely on this being possible. The
naive approach used in sb is not by itself usefu
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 21 February 2012 18:36, Peter Hartman wrote:
>>> This is stil is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>
> I was thinking it would be a more conscise method (also as libsoup
> changes - though as I a
On 21 February 2012 18:36, Peter Hartman wrote:
>> This is stil is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
>
> Why?
>
>
I was thinking it would be a more conscise method (also as libsoup
changes - though as I am looking increasingly through it, it seems
that the current solution
> This is stil is favorable than the current approach as far as I can tell.
Why?
--
sic dicit magister P
University of Toronto / Fordham University
http://individual.utoronto.ca/peterjh
gpg 1024D/ED6EF59B (7D1A 522F D08E 30F6 FA42 B269 B860 352B ED6E F59B)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-ke
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nick wrote:
> userbase of < 5 ;)
Hey, just because we're quiet doesn't mean we aren't here.
On 21 February 2012 15:13, Nick wrote:
> Quoth Peter Hartman:
>> The other reason (besides hatred of libsoup) that surf never bothered
>> implementing anything other than what it currently has is that (to my
>> knowledge) there has yet to be a bona fide web-site that the current
>> system fails on
Quoth Peter Hartman:
> The other reason (besides hatred of libsoup) that surf never bothered
> implementing anything other than what it currently has is that (to my
> knowledge) there has yet to be a bona fide web-site that the current
> system fails on. There's a lot of FUD, but none (to my knowl
The other reason (besides hatred of libsoup) that surf never bothered
implementing anything other than what it currently has is that (to my
knowledge) there has yet to be a bona fide web-site that the current
system fails on. There's a lot of FUD, but none (to my knowledge)
that is bona fide. Of
On 21 February 2012 14:30, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:07:28PM -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> I suppose it shows the attitude of the list.
>
> what it shows is some self-righteous thin-skinned internet guy
>
>> I was merely posting here to point out something possibly helpfu
Hi Calvin,
Quoth Calvin Morrison:
> I'm not sure why nobody has decided to use the documented way from Gtk
> webkit. I think it isn't very sloppy (unless I am just the only
> confused one here)
Probably either it wasn't got around to, or it was a mistaken
attempt to distance the browser somewhat
g
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Calvin Morrison wrote:
you seem upset. stop it
After posting here for the first time, I was met with hostile comments
by Christoph. It is a little bit upsetting when someone attacks
something you work on (be it a good or bad project). It was rather
uncalled for. I suppo
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:07:28PM -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> I suppose it shows the attitude of the list.
what it shows is some self-righteous thin-skinned internet guy
> I was merely posting here to point out something possibly helpful. I
> guess that warrants an attack on myself.
you we
Hey,
I don't know about the cookie handling in surf, but I'm sure there's a
reason. Perhaps someone more involved with surf can explain.
On 21 February 2012 19:07, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> After posting here for the first time, I was met with hostile comments
> by Christoph. It is a little bit u
> you seem upset. stop it
After posting here for the first time, I was met with hostile comments
by Christoph. It is a little bit upsetting when someone attacks
something you work on (be it a good or bad project). It was rather
uncalled for. I suppose it shows the attitude of the list.
I was mere
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 01:34:07PM -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Because surf is a non-tabbed editor the doesn't seek the same goals as
> mine? yeah that's probably why. This browser was a weekend project
> which i spent some time hacking on, not a full browser not intended to
> be.
http://tools
On 21 February 2012 13:22, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Calvin Morrison wrote:
>> I have written my own tabbed browser called sb [1], it has cookie
>> handling built in very simple and the cookie file is a flat file
>> format. This is all done with libsoup.
>>
>> The co
Somebody claiming to be Christoph Lohmann wrote:
And btw., »GPLv3 except stuff under MIT/X from surf« – I don't
think such culture bolshevism is legal.
It's definitely legal, though one might want to be more specific about which
"stuff" is MIT licensed.
--
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See
Greetings.
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> I have written my own tabbed browser called sb [1], it has cookie
> handling built in very simple and the cookie file is a flat file
> format. This is all done with libsoup.
>
> The code required to do this is minimal, and in my code it took 2 lines [2]
>
> w.
Hello,
This is my first post here, though I actively follow the developments
around here. I was reading the Project Ideas section on the website
and read about ideas for surf's cookie handling.
"The biggest disadvantage of surf is sloppy cookie handling. libwebkit
and libsoup (which are used for
32 matches
Mail list logo
