So you've sent one to legal-discuss? (just confirming)
On 25/09/2012, at 7:33 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> Oops, just sent one there... :-)
>
> Let's see if we get something back.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012, at 09:28 PM, Angus Turner wrote:
>> Hey Guys,
>> I've gotten the original doc
Oops, just sent one there... :-)
Let's see if we get something back.
Upayavira
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012, at 09:28 PM, Angus Turner wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> I've gotten the original documents back from Dan, it seems to was just
> the
> standard CCLA. I plan to write an email to legal-discuss now to sort
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7230/#review11860
---
Ship it!
Well, maybe it has something to do with waveinabox.net runn
> On Sept. 24, 2012, 7:04 p.m., Yuri Zelikov wrote:
> > Actually I had to revert the the previous patch for waveinabox.net since it
> > somehow broke the websockets for Chrome. Even though it worked fine
> > locally. I guess we need to test it on instance with an actual domain but
> > without
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7230/#review11856
---
Ship it!
Great Ali, this was in my TODO list. Maybe I would use some
Hey Guys,
I've gotten the original documents back from Dan, it seems to was just the
standard CCLA. I plan to write an email to legal-discuss now to sort this
out. I've made progress on a number of other fronts with the 3rd party
libraries so i'll write up a status email after this is sorted out.
T
Ok, will do when I'm back behind the firewall tomorrow, I'll let you know
how it goes.
Cheers
On Monday, September 24, 2012, Ali Lown wrote:
> If you would like to test it again now/tomorrow?
>
> It took a few hours longer than I expected because I had to stop and
> write a patch for Wave (and ha
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7230/#review11852
---
Actually I had to revert the the previous patch for waveinabox.net si
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/7230/
---
Review request for wave, Yuri Zelikov and Vicente J. Ruiz Jurado.
Description
--
If you would like to test it again now/tomorrow?
It took a few hours longer than I expected because I had to stop and
write a patch for Wave (and have dinner, and everything else) to make
it work.
This should have all traffic going over port 443, so if you check in
Wireshark all you should see is
Whenever you get a chance to do that I'll be happy to retest :)
Thanks again
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> Yes, packet #46 because I try to make you connect over 9898.
> (This is because I have the configuration mis-setup, but didn't want
> to reboot the wave server to fix i
Yes, packet #46 because I try to make you connect over 9898.
(This is because I have the configuration mis-setup, but didn't want
to reboot the wave server to fix it).
I can move it so that websockets goes over 443, then I will let you
try again. (At which time it should work fine).
On 24 Septemb
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNMnlmZkZWZWtEQ28
Looks like you're right there Ali I'm seeing port not allowed in the http
packets
Cheers
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> Yes.
>
> On 24 September 2012 17:01, Ben Hegarty wrote:
> > Sure I can try there too, is it s
Yes.
On 24 September 2012 17:01, Ben Hegarty wrote:
> Sure I can try there too, is it still set with the same dets?
> Regards
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
>
>> Extracting the data as raw bytes from the first Websocket response
>> packet (#95) gives us the following HTML
Sure I can try there too, is it still set with the same dets?
Regards
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Ali Lown wrote:
> Extracting the data as raw bytes from the first Websocket response
> packet (#95) gives us the following HTML page (attached).
>
> So, it is _definitely_ an issue with your p
Extracting the data as raw bytes from the first Websocket response
packet (#95) gives us the following HTML page (attached).
So, it is _definitely_ an issue with your proxy server not
understanding the Websockets.
For more information on exactly how they work, a good article would
be: http://lucu
Hey Ali,
Basically I get 'A turbulance' after logging in and never go online and no
wave data is saved down, you just see 'Unsaved all the time'..
I've uploaded the wireshark trace to the following location :)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5FF_Ld8SzsNMm5oOGJXajlOV00
HTH
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012
> basically it looks like the problem comes from the fact that the request
> uses a relative path instead of a full path for the request
AFAIK it is the browser's responsibility to convert relative paths for
communicating to the server.
> I've been investigating some issues that I've been having
Hey Guys,
I've been investigating some issues that I've been having with using wave
behind a proxy server and found this thread about proxy issues which are
identical to the issue I'm seeing...
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=107696
basically it looks like the problem comes from the
Yeah I can do that. I'm inclined to think that they can go, as elsewhere in
the code base it's just 'Copyright 2011 Google'. It'd be great to get the
original agreements between Google and Apache to see what the terms were,
which would also help to answer the question. I'd prefer to find them
befor
20 matches
Mail list logo
