On 2016-01-07 20:03, Richard Gaskin wrote:
I'm just far enough into Robert Love's "Linux System Programming" that
I think the solution to FastCGI may be much simpler than I'd
previously thought.
I think you need to read a bit more about fork ;)
I think we need a new command that launches a sp
On 2016-01-07 00:25, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 7 Jan 2016, at 9:01 am, Peter TB Brett
wrote:
It remains to be seen whether I can figure out how do that. ;-)
Personally I’d rather you declare force majeure on wait for HTML5 and
apply your considerable talents to implementing non-blocking versi
I like it!
Sent from my iPhone
> On 8 Jan 2016, at 8:52 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> on processThing
> load url "..." with "processThing2"
> end processThing
>
> on processThing2 pUrlData
> revb_query_async("processThing3", ..., "SELECT * FROM x WHERE y = %1",
> "tInput")
> end processThi
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> That actually is referring to *blocking wait* which is evil. Non-blocking
> wait is entirely natural though. It is the difference between being able to
> write code like:
>
> on processThing
> put url "..." into tInput
> put revdb_que
Like sockets with messages ;)
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 7:00 AM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> I like it!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 8 Jan 2016, at 8:52 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>>
>> on processThing
>> load url "..." with "processThing2"
>> end processThing
>>
>> on processThing2 pUrlData
>>
Ray, I didn’t see a response to this… Yes, to your question… all you need to do
is to make sure you include a link in the Standalone Application Settings for
each of the iPhone Splash Screens. You don’t have to name the screens “Default”
or anything specific. LC takes care of that in the build p
Silly typo - yesterday when I wrote:
With portable HDDs selling at around US$50/GB multiple redundant backups
are easy, esp. with:
...of course I meant "US$50/TB" - it would be insane to pay $50/GB these
days. :)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for t
Monte Goulding wrote:
> It’s worth noting that FastCGI doesn’t require fork
> http://www.fastcgi.com/drupal/node/6?q=node/22#S3
> so if you are keen to implement FastCGI in script you could
> try doing that now. If fork is implemented then it should be
> easy to add to your implementation.
If not
> Am 08.01.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Richard Gaskin :
>
> Silly typo - yesterday when I wrote:
>> With portable HDDs selling at around US$50/GB multiple redundant backups
>> are easy, esp. with:
>
> ...of course I meant "US$50/TB" - it would be insane to pay $50/GB these
> days. :)
>
I remember t
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 6:21 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> If not via forking by what means can we handle concurrency?
For Apache mod_fcgid will start multiple processes for you. As will spawn-fcgi
if you aren’t running a web server that will do it for you.
Cheers
Monte
_
Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2016, at 6:21 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>> If not via forking by what means can we handle concurrency?
>
> For Apache mod_fcgid will start multiple processes for you. As will
> spawn-fcgi if you aren’t running a web server that will do it for you.
Now I'm supe
Hi list
When I run the following code on my Mac (LC community 6.5.2) :
get "04/17/2016"
convert it to seconds
put it
I get 1460844000
When I run the same code on LC server (on-rev account) I get
1460840400
Any idea wht there's a difference ?
Thanks
jbv
__
jbv wrote:
When I run the following code on my Mac (LC community 6.5.2) :
get "04/17/2016"
convert it to seconds
put it
I get 1460844000
When I run the same code on LC server (on-rev account) I get
1460840400
Any idea wht there's a difference ?
With a difference of 3600, it looks l
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 2:20 am, Trevor DeVore wrote:
>
> start asynchronous block "processThing" with error callback
Background threads then. A while back we were discussing threading
(http://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=19569&hilit=+background&sid=b5e636e53ac539017fb945ef9529d824
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 7:33 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> Now I'm super-confused: if we already have everything we need for FastCGI
> under Apache, what's all the fuss about?
Isn’t it you making the fuss ;-)
We don’t actually have everything. Someone either needs to implement the
FastCGI protoc
Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2016, at 7:33 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>> Now I'm super-confused: if we already have everything we need for
>> FastCGI under Apache, what's all the fuss about?
>
> Isn’t it you making the fuss ;-)
I seem to be in good company, since FastCGI is something you a
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 8:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> I'm fine with writing some code so the main process hands off tasks to
> workers. The issue I've run into is that I've found no way to hand the
> socket connection to the worker.
This is unnecessary. The basic idea with FastCGI is you ha
Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2016, at 8:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>> I'm fine with writing some code so the main process hands off tasks
>> to workers. The issue I've run into is that I've found no way to
>> hand the socket connection to the worker.
>
> This is unnecessary.
It might s
Try this:
on mouseUp
put "1/1/69" into t
convert t to secs
convert t to short date
put t
end mouseUp
Is there yet a convenient way to handle conversion of dates prior to 1/1/70?
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the We
On 1/8/2016 4:53 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Try this:
on mouseUp
put "1/1/69" into t
convert t to secs
convert t to short date
put t
end mouseUp
Is there yet a convenient way to handle conversion of dates prior to
1/1/70?
I get 1/1/69. I get the same thing if I specify the year ex
J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:53 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Try this:
on mouseUp
put "1/1/69" into t
convert t to secs
convert t to short date
put t
end mouseUp
Is there yet a convenient way to handle conversion of dates prior to
1/1/70?
I get 1/1/69. I get the same thing i
Hi,
Malte created a date library https://github.com/derbrill/libdate
If i remember right it can handle dates below 1970 and above 2036.
Matthias
> Am 08.01.2016 um 23:53 schrieb Richard Gaskin :
>
> Try this:
>
> on mouseUp
> put "1/1/69" into t
> convert t to secs
> convert t to short da
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 9:35 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> Monte Goulding wrote:
> >> On 9 Jan 2016, at 8:24 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm fine with writing some code so the main process hands off tasks
> >> to workers. The issue I've run into is that I've found no way to
> >> hand the so
On 01/08/2016 03:06 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Mark Waddingham flagged this a while back,
*a while* ... 2007 ... rev 2.8.1rc3
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to
Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2016, at 9:35 am, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> ...if one were to make a sort of Node.lc I would imagine they'd
>> need to hand off socket connections to workers, no?
>
> Or you could just act as an intermediary accepting connections from
> whatever is making the requ
Isn't that when you deploy your app on EC2 instances with Elasitc Load Balancer
and all your static content served by CloudFront from S3?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 11:45 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> I've used that and it seems to work well enough, but my concern is that if
> sc
Monte Goulding wrote:
>> On 9 Jan 2016, at 11:45 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>> I've used that and it seems to work well enough, but my concern is
>> that if scaled large enough it may be even better to not have a
>> single instance handling all connections.
>
> Isn't that when you deploy your a
It was just an example. There's obviously more than one way to scale.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 9 Jan 2016, at 12:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> If Amazon was the only way to run web sites that assumption would be correct.
___
use-livecode mailing l
Monte Goulding wrote:
> There's obviously more than one way to scale.
Agreed. The question I and others may have not far down the road, and
the question Todd already faced, is whether LiveCode can be a part of it.
If I were to play it safe I could limit LiveCode to the client only, and
use i
Richard.
I get the date you first put in. Tried several, all the way back to the battle
of Hastings. All good The negative seconds do the math as well as ordinary
ones.
The thing went south when I tried the birth of Charlemangne. I suppose thee
digit dates are not well received.
Craig
On 01/08/2016 05:48 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
But I like LiveCode. I'd even go so far as to say that I love it. And
when I see truly massive systems like Eve Online, and efficient systems
like Node.js, I see things that are very close to what LiveCode can do
right now - but is LiveCode close e
Mark Wieder wrote:
I think part of maturing as a developer is being able to pick an
appropriate tool for a given job.
And as a business owner as well.
I'm willing to explore the question, but I'm not betting my business on
it; hence the exploration.
It would benefit the community, and by ex
32 matches
Mail list logo
