[Chicken-users] Running Spiffy and Apache on the same host
Hi guys I have a server in which I need to run apache for some homepages which are already running. But I am building almost every new thing (which is not a lot of things) using web-scheme + spiffy. My spiffy server is currently listening to port 8080, because apache is on 80. I was thinking about a solution to this, because I don't want to put everything on port 8080, I came to something simple which I think could work. I can put 2 IPs on the same host and configure apache to listen to port 80 on one IP and spiffy to listen to port 80 on the other. I made some tests with apache and netcat, and it seems that it can work. I looked at docs and code of spiffy and did not found a way to do it. It seems that any change to implement this would propagate at least to http egg. Does all this make any sense to you? Is there any easier way to do it? Cheers, Rodrigo ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Running Spiffy and Apache on the same host
Hi! I can put 2 IPs on the same host and configure apache to listen to port 80 on one IP and spiffy to listen to port 80 on the other. What about configuring mod_proxy in Apache to redirect certain URLs to the Spiffy process? Groetjes, Peter. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re: [Chicken-users] performance issue in xml-rpc
On 12/7/06, Daishi Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Please let me continue on this issue. The result of measuring time for a certain repeat of the RPC request shows not a liner curve but somewhat exponential. The figure attached show it with the number of repeated requests at x-axis and the total time took at y-axis. Hi Daishi, Some questions: So, this is a graph of total run-time after N sequential requests? There's no concurrency here? And the requests are uniform -- e.g., the size and complexity of the requests and responses are all the same? Is it possible that other processes also running, and consuming resources -- either on the server or client machine? Are you running client and server on the same box? on a dedicated network? Shared? What does the memory usage look like? Does smoke come out of the box when the number of requests increase? If so, how much? (Hey, you never know unless you ask.) --G ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re: [Chicken-users] performance issue in xml-rpc
Hi, I'm currently apart from the machine I used for the result, but let me answer to the following questions. Hi Daishi, Some questions: So, this is a graph of total run-time after N sequential requests? exactly. There's no concurrency here? Believe so. I'm not the one who made the client side. And the requests are uniform -- e.g., the size and complexity of the requests and responses are all the same? yes. Is it possible that other processes also running, and consuming resources -- either on the server or client machine? It is possible, but not likely to change the result much. Are you running client and server on the same box? on a dedicated network? Shared? On the same machine. What does the memory usage look like? I didn't check it. Does smoke come out of the box when the number of requests increase? If so, how much? (Hey, you never know unless you ask.) Oh, I don't hope it smoke,s by now. Well, I can try writing the client side in scheme, so that you can reproduce the problem. (But you need to wait until next Monday, since I'll be off for a while.) Currently, the client is written in Java, and I haven't read the code yet. Thanks anyway for asking this. Do you happen to know how to run some kind of profiling on xml-rpc and http eggs? Daishi ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
Hello CHICKEN users, I'm new both to chicken scheme and, in fact, to scheme itself. I was attracted to chicken as soon as I saw that it had a very simple module management system. I have experienced a few problems with installing some of the eggs though. It seems that two important eggs (i.e. ones with quite a few dependents) won't install correctly: easyffi and base64. aquila:/home/richard# chicken-setup easyffi /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d0 easyffi.scm -G csc: invalid option `-G' make: Failed to make easyffi.so: shell invocation failed with non-zero return status Error: shell invocation failed with non-zero return status /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d0 easyffi.scm -G 64 and aquila:/home/richard# chicken-setup base64 /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d1 base64.scm -emit-exports base64.exports csc: invalid option `-emit-exports' Error: shell invocation failed with non-zero return status /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d1 base64.scm -emit-exports ... 64 My system is Debian unstable with chicken 2.3 I hope its just something really simple! Also, I notice that it leaves the egg file and an associated directory in the directory where I run chicken-setup. Is it alright to delete these afterwards? (BTW, my jabber id predates not only my decision to try chicken scheme but also my awareness of its existence!) Cheers, Richard -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard Lewis Sonic Arts Research Archive http://www.sara.uea.ac.uk/ JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Richard, On Dec 7, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Richard Lewis wrote: Hello CHICKEN users, I'm new both to chicken scheme and, in fact, to scheme itself. I was attracted to chicken as soon as I saw that it had a very simple module management system. Well, maybe not. New users w/ older chicken releases always run into the problems you are facing. I have experienced a few problems with installing some of the eggs though. It seems that two important eggs (i.e. ones with quite a few dependents) won't install correctly: easyffi and base64. aquila:/home/richard# chicken-setup easyffi /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d0 easyffi.scm -G csc: invalid option `-G' make: Failed to make easyffi.so: shell invocation failed with non- zero return status Error: shell invocation failed with non-zero return status /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d0 easyffi.scm -G 64 and aquila:/home/richard# chicken-setup base64 /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d1 base64.scm -emit-exports base64.exports csc: invalid option `-emit-exports' Error: shell invocation failed with non-zero return status /usr/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -s -O2 -d1 base64.scm -emit-exports ... 64 My system is Debian unstable with chicken 2.3 I hope its just something really simple! Need at least version 2.5, which must be built from source for Linux. You know the drill: Get http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/ chicken-2.5.tar.gz. Extract. Follow the instructions in the README. The current version is 2.509, but this must be acquired thru darcs or svn. Sorry, Chicken is unstable in the sense that it is being extended and refined constantly. Many changes are not efficiently backwards compatible, especially when an egg requires a new feature. Missing is the ability to associate Chicken Egg versions. As the community grows this becomes more of a problem. Also, I notice that it leaves the egg file and an associated directory in the directory where I run chicken-setup. Is it alright to delete these afterwards? Yes. (BTW, my jabber id predates not only my decision to try chicken scheme but also my awareness of its existence!) Cheers, Richard -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard Lewis Sonic Arts Research Archive http://www.sara.uea.ac.uk/ JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkV4VU4ACgkQJJNoeGe+5O7nlQCfZV4wpyq+EqO+42tOOxxVjTwZ +4sAn3hEsDPu+j7hWv59h/wv5OqYTf/H =bm1P -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re: [Chicken-users] stream-wiki and eggs
On 12/7/06, felix winkelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about eggdoc-wiki? (just a thought, possibly silly) That would only work as a one-shot thing--once people start changing the wiki, your eggdoc is out of date. You might as well write a wiki page to start with, and make that the canonical one. I must say that I prefer wiki to eggdoc in the moment. The syntax is very editing-friendly and can be read more easily. I would agree that simplicity of editing is a huge plus. I set up a wiki at a client for this reason and found that I generate and fix documentation there at a much higher rate. On the other hand, the consistent formatting and semantic data in eggdoc is helpful to me. I see that both latex and pdf output from the wiki can be generated, with texi planned. I need to read this code and see if it can do indexing, etc. Perhaps there is enough information to produce reasonable eggdoc-like HTML. Since much of the target domain is Scheme and egg documentation, I also wonder if the wiki syntax should be extended to add basic stuff like 'function syntax' and 'variable' and so on--things that are present in texi and eggdoc and would add semantic value. This would still be easy to edit but would allow improved output. Some information would still be lost (for example, I used the version history and author fields in eggdoc-texi) but ease of editing could trump that. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re: [Chicken-users] performance issue in xml-rpc
On 12/7/06, Daishi Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does smoke come out of the box when the number of requests increase? If so, how much? (Hey, you never know unless you ask.) Oh, I don't hope it smoke,s by now. Too bad. I could have helped you with that one! :-) Well, I can try writing the client side in scheme, so that you can reproduce the problem. (But you need to wait until next Monday, since I'll be off for a while.) Currently, the client is written in Java, and I haven't read the code yet. Thanks anyway for asking this. Do you happen to know how to run some kind of profiling on xml-rpc and http eggs? Not too familiar. :-( Chicken has profiler support; also, the fact that you can compile to C suggests that C-profiling tools would also work correctly. But I think I would start with 'top' if you are running on a Unix box; just watch the processes, their CPU and memory usage, and hope to discover a clue. Separating the client and server onto separate machines might also be useful, though it may not uncover the problem. In terms of load testing, I'm pretty primitive when it comes to this kind of thing. I start with apachebench (ab), first from the localhost, then from a nearby peer. Later if I really need to test heavy loads, I have access to a lab of workstations; I script them to attack the server, and watch what happens. It is not like real-world traffic, though -- the latency is too low and the bandwidth too high -- you would need to introduce a bottleneck into your network to be more realistic. But I'm digressing. Graham ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] stream-wiki and eggs
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:55:55 -0600 Zbigniew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also wonder if the wiki syntax should be extended to add basic stuff like 'function syntax' and 'variable' and so on--things that are present in texi and eggdoc and would add semantic value. That would also make possible the conversion from wiki to the man egg format. Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken 2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup supported different build commands for different versions of Chicken, this would make packaging Chicken code a whole lot easier. In my case, I want to provide my software as Debian packages, and so I am stuck with whatever version of Chicken is available in the current Debian stable release. Kon Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Missing is the ability to associate Chicken Egg versions. As the community grows this becomes more of a problem. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
Hello Ivan, On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:04:57 -0500 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken 2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup supported different build commands for different versions of Chicken, this would make packaging Chicken code a whole lot easier. In my case, I want to provide my software as Debian packages, and so I am stuck with whatever version of Chicken is available in the current Debian stable release. Would it be difficult to make Debian a little more up-to-date regarding to Chicken? 2.3 is quite old. Or maybe we should have an unofficial Chicken build for Debian and its derivatives ([K,X]Ubuntu, Knoppix etc). I don't know about dpkg packaging and compatibility among distributions .deb packages, so I have no idea if it's feasible, easy or even worth. Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
Thanks for your replies regarding this. I've just managed to install easyffi by removing the -G option from easyffi.setup. But it looks like I'll have to have a go at self-compilation. Being a Debian user I'm extremely unused to this sort of thing. Wish me luck ;-) On Thursday 07 December 2006 18:15, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote: Hello Ivan, On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:04:57 -0500 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken 2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup supported different build commands for different versions of Chicken, this would make packaging Chicken code a whole lot easier. In my case, I want to provide my software as Debian packages, and so I am stuck with whatever version of Chicken is available in the current Debian stable release. Would it be difficult to make Debian a little more up-to-date regarding to Chicken? 2.3 is quite old. Or maybe we should have an unofficial Chicken build for Debian and its derivatives ([K,X]Ubuntu, Knoppix etc). I don't know about dpkg packaging and compatibility among distributions .deb packages, so I have no idea if it's feasible, easy or even worth. I would certainly use a Chicken Debian repository if someone were to make one. Cheers, Richard -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Richard Lewis Sonic Arts Research Archive http://www.sara.uea.ac.uk/ JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
Well, I am not the maintainer for the Debian Chicken package, so I don't know. But unless the more recent versions of Chicken depend on libraries or library versions that are not present in Debian, it's probably not that difficult. Actually, the real problem here would be that the Debian release cycle takes about a year, and once a Debian stable release comes out, the packages in it may not be upgraded, except for security-related patches. So whatever version of Chicken you pick, you are stuck with it for a year -- which is not at all unreasonable from a release manager's point of view. Debian stable is stable because it provides a consistent and well-tested environment, even if it doesn't have all the bleeding edge software. That's why I think that if developers can rely on some support for older Chicken releases, this will contribute greatly to the usefulness of Chicken for software in mainstream Linux distributions. -Ivan Mario Domenech Goulart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello Ivan, On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:04:57 -0500 Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think even the most simple kind of Chicken/egg versioning would go a long way. For example, I can build easyffi and use it in Chicken 2.3 if I simply remove the -G option. So if chicken-setup supported different build commands for different versions of Chicken, this would make packaging Chicken code a whole lot easier. In my case, I want to provide my software as Debian packages, and so I am stuck with whatever version of Chicken is available in the current Debian stable release. Would it be difficult to make Debian a little more up-to-date regarding to Chicken? 2.3 is quite old. Or maybe we should have an unofficial Chicken build for Debian and its derivatives ([K,X]Ubuntu, Knoppix etc). I don't know about dpkg packaging and compatibility among distributions .deb packages, so I have no idea if it's feasible, easy or even worth. Best wishes, Mario ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently unstable from the perspective of Debian stable, since the eggs are constantly updated and haven't gone through the Debian release cycle. If you care enough to run Debian stable, you don't want to do this. If you want to use chicken-setup, you should use the latest stable version of Chicken, which to me implies compiling or using Debian unstable (if available). I know that seems Draconian, but getting eggs to work on earlier versions of Chicken is not always easy. Dependencies may change, features may not be available, etc. I think it would be a massive pain to maintain such a thing, not to mention the infrastructure isn't there, although Felix can be surprising. On 12/7/06, Ivan Raikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I am not the maintainer for the Debian Chicken package, so I don't know. But unless the more recent versions of Chicken depend on libraries or library versions that are not present in Debian, it's probably not that difficult. Actually, the real problem here would be that the Debian release cycle takes about a year, and once a Debian stable release comes out, the packages in it may not be upgraded, except for security-related patches. So whatever version of Chicken you pick, you are stuck with it for a year -- which is not at all unreasonable from a release manager's point of view. Debian stable is stable because it provides a consistent and well-tested environment, even if it doesn't have all the bleeding edge software. That's why I think that if developers can rely on some support for older Chicken releases, this will contribute greatly to the usefulness of Chicken for software in mainstream Linux distributions. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Zbigniew wrote: It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently unstable from the perspective of Debian stable, since the eggs are constantly updated and haven't gone through the Debian release cycle. If you care enough to run Debian stable, you don't want to do this. If you want to use chicken-setup, you should use the latest stable version of Chicken, which to me implies compiling or using Debian unstable (if available). I know that seems Draconian, but getting eggs to work on earlier versions of Chicken is not always easy. Dependencies may change, features may not be available, etc. I think it would be a massive pain to maintain such a thing, not to mention the infrastructure isn't there, although Felix can be surprising. Thank you. I was just going to mention that. What do Debian users do when they want some new Java package that depends on this years JVM +Libs, not last years? However, being able to explicitly state Chicken-Egg Egg-Egg version requirements would still be useful. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
You make a good point; actually, I would say that Debian needs to have a package for each individual egg, so that the developer who wishes to release Debian packages of their Chicken code can have precise control over dependencies. But then this means that the egg repository must match egg versions with Chicken versions, which is essentially what I'd like to have. I am not suggesting that each egg developer test their egg with all versions of Chicken ever released. All I am proposing is a field in the egg setup file that indicates which version(s) of Chicken was/were used to compile and test that egg. This could be combined with a unit test framework. Such a system would be optional, but it would still allow for dedicated developers to port the eggs they are interested in to Debian stable and package up their software. -Ivan Zbigniew [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently unstable from the perspective of Debian stable, since the eggs are constantly updated and haven't gone through the Debian release cycle. If you care enough to run Debian stable, you don't want to do this. If you want to use chicken-setup, you should use the latest stable version of Chicken, which to me implies compiling or using Debian unstable (if available). I know that seems Draconian, but getting eggs to work on earlier versions of Chicken is not always easy. Dependencies may change, features may not be available, etc. I think it would be a massive pain to maintain such a thing, not to mention the infrastructure isn't there, although Felix can be surprising. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand... Kon Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you. I was just going to mention that. What do Debian users do when they want some new Java package that depends on this years JVM +Libs, not last years? ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
Ivan Raikov scripsit: We don't use Sun's implementation of Java, because it's not ideologically pure ;-) Plus everyone knows that good programming languages have a specification that doesn't shift like quicksand... Well, Algol (60 and 68) should meet your needs, then, as should PL/I. Very stable, all of them. -- Well, I have news for our current leaders John Cowan and the leaders of tomorrow: the Bill of[EMAIL PROTECTED] Rights is not a frivolous luxury, in force http://www.ccil.org/~cowan only during times of peace and prosperity. We don't just push it to the side when the going gets tough. --Molly Ivins ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Res: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
I think that a simple solution, that would not solve this particular problem but might help in the future is to have an egg repository for each version. So if someone is using an older version of chicken, the chicken-setup will use the appropriate repository. However, new eggs wouldn't be available. Paulo - Mensagem original De: Kon Lovett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: chicken chicken-users@nongnu.org Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 7 de Dezembro de 2006 17:47:54 Assunto: Re: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Zbigniew wrote: It seems to me that if Debian provides a Chicken 2.3 package for stability reasons, then Debian should also provide a 2.3 eggs package and keep it up to date. Using chicken-setup is inherently unstable from the perspective of Debian stable, since the eggs are constantly updated and haven't gone through the Debian release cycle. If you care enough to run Debian stable, you don't want to do this. If you want to use chicken-setup, you should use the latest stable version of Chicken, which to me implies compiling or using Debian unstable (if available). I know that seems Draconian, but getting eggs to work on earlier versions of Chicken is not always easy. Dependencies may change, features may not be available, etc. I think it would be a massive pain to maintain such a thing, not to mention the infrastructure isn't there, although Felix can be surprising. Thank you. I was just going to mention that. What do Debian users do when they want some new Java package that depends on this years JVM +Libs, not last years? However, being able to explicitly state Chicken-Egg Egg-Egg version requirements would still be useful. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users ___ Novidade no Yahoo! Mail: receba alertas de novas mensagens no seu celular. Registre seu aparelho agora! http://br.mobile.yahoo.com/mailalertas/ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: Res: [Chicken-users] New user; egg problems
That's okay, as long as there is the possibility of back-porting eggs to older versions. Paulo Jabardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, new eggs wouldn't be available. Paulo ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
