[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Hey Darren, Something like this: // Old and busted LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch) // New hotness LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch) Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc Better, or worse? Ty On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
A bit better, thanks - that fixed the *Dispatch calls. Now it's just the following lines causing a problem: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch { case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest) if r.param(token).isDefined = () = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r) } LiftRules.prependRewrite { case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(user :: user :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, index), Map(uid - user)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(tag :: tag :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, tag), Map(tag - tag)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(conversation :: cid :: Nil, , _, _), _, _) = RewriteResponse(List(user_view, conversation), Map(cid - cid)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(search :: term :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, search), Map(term - term)) } LiftRules.appendViewDispatch { case user_view :: _ = UserView } LiftRules.appendEarly(makeUtf8) Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 9:52 pm, TylerWeir tyler.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Darren, Something like this: // Old and busted LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch) // New hotness LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch) Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc Better, or worse? Ty On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Darren, Any LiftRules.append* or LiftRules.prepend* becomes LiftRules.*.append or LiftRules.*.prepend e.g.: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) - LiftRules.template.prepend(User.templates) On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: A bit better, thanks - that fixed the *Dispatch calls. Now it's just the following lines causing a problem: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch { case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest) if r.param(token).isDefined = () = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r) } LiftRules.prependRewrite { case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(user :: user :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, index), Map(uid - user)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(tag :: tag :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, tag), Map(tag - tag)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(conversation :: cid :: Nil, , _, _), _, _) = RewriteResponse(List(user_view, conversation), Map(cid - cid)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(search :: term :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, search), Map(term - term)) } LiftRules.appendViewDispatch { case user_view :: _ = UserView } LiftRules.appendEarly(makeUtf8) Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 9:52 pm, TylerWeir tyler.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Darren, Something like this: // Old and busted LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch) // New hotness LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch) Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc Better, or worse? Ty On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Caught the rewrite one too, leaving: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch { case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest) if r.param(token).isDefined = () = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r) } LiftRules.appendViewDispatch { case user_view :: _ = UserView } LiftRules.appendEarly(makeUtf8) appendView - viewDispatch.append almost worked, except that the case line failed to compile. - Darren On Dec 18, 10:39 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: A bit better, thanks - that fixed the *Dispatch calls. Now it's just the following lines causing a problem: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch { case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest) if r.param(token).isDefined = () = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r) } LiftRules.prependRewrite { case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(user :: user :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, index), Map(uid - user)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(tag :: tag :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, tag), Map(tag - tag)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(conversation :: cid :: Nil, , _, _), _, _) = RewriteResponse(List(user_view, conversation), Map(cid - cid)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(search :: term :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, search), Map(term - term)) } LiftRules.appendViewDispatch { case user_view :: _ = UserView } LiftRules.appendEarly(makeUtf8) Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 9:52 pm, TylerWeir tyler.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Darren, Something like this: // Old and busted LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch) // New hotness LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch) Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc Better, or worse? Ty On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
David, error: value template is not a member of object net.liftweb.http.LiftRules I removed net/liftweb from my Maven repo about an hour ago, so I'm pretty sure I'm up to date with the latest build. Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 10:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Darren, Any LiftRules.append* or LiftRules.prepend* becomes LiftRules.*.append or LiftRules.*.prepend e.g.: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) - LiftRules.template.prepend(User.templates) On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: A bit better, thanks - that fixed the *Dispatch calls. Now it's just the following lines causing a problem: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch { case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest) if r.param(token).isDefined = () = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r) } LiftRules.prependRewrite { case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(user :: user :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, index), Map(uid - user)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(tag :: tag :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, tag), Map(tag - tag)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(conversation :: cid :: Nil, , _, _), _, _) = RewriteResponse(List(user_view, conversation), Map(cid - cid)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(search :: term :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, search), Map(term - term)) } LiftRules.appendViewDispatch { case user_view :: _ = UserView } LiftRules.appendEarly(makeUtf8) Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 9:52 pm, TylerWeir tyler.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Darren, Something like this: // Old and busted LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch) // New hotness LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch) Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc Better, or worse? Ty On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Collaborative Task Managementhttp://much4.us Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Apache ESME source is now fixed building cleanly again - thanks to David for this. Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 10:48 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: David, error: value template is not a member of object net.liftweb.http.LiftRules I removed net/liftweb from my Maven repo about an hour ago, so I'm pretty sure I'm up to date with the latest build. Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 10:42 pm, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Darren, Any LiftRules.append* or LiftRules.prepend* becomes LiftRules.*.append or LiftRules.*.prepend e.g.: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) - LiftRules.template.prepend(User.templates) On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: A bit better, thanks - that fixed the *Dispatch calls. Now it's just the following lines causing a problem: LiftRules.prependTemplate(User.templates) LiftRules.appendStatelessDispatch { case r @ Req(api :: send_msg :: Nil, , PostRequest) if r.param(token).isDefined = () = RestAPI.sendMsgWithToken(r) } LiftRules.prependRewrite { case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(user :: user :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, index), Map(uid - user)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(tag :: tag :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, tag), Map(tag - tag)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(conversation :: cid :: Nil, , _, _), _, _) = RewriteResponse(List(user_view, conversation), Map(cid - cid)) case RewriteRequest(ParsePath(search :: term :: Nil,, _,_), _, _) = RewriteResponse( List(user_view, search), Map(term - term)) } LiftRules.appendViewDispatch { case user_view :: _ = UserView } LiftRules.appendEarly(makeUtf8) Cheers, Darren On Dec 18, 9:52 pm, TylerWeir tyler.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Darren, Something like this: // Old and busted LiftRules.prependDispatch(RestAPI.dispatch) // New hotness LiftRules.dispatch.prepend(RestAPI.dispatch) Lather, rinse and repeat for dispatch, rewrite, etc Better, or worse? Ty On Dec 18, 4:47 pm, Darren Hague dha...@fortybeans.com wrote: Dano (or David), Care to share what your changes were? I'm facing the same problem right now with ESME - lots of LiftRules.append* and LiftRules.prepend* in Boot.scala which will not compile any more - even Googling LiftRules RulesSeq returns no results at all... :-( Cheers, Darren On Dec 15, 7:08 pm, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net Collaborative Task Managementhttp://much4.us Follow me:http://twitter.com/dpp Git some:http://github.com/dpp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: So LiftConfig would take the role of LiftRules from API perspective meaning that LiftRules could be completely hidden from Lift users but available internally to Lift only ? Since LiftRules would then only expose immutable data, I'd see no problem exposing it if there is value in exposing it. But keeping it private is a very viable strategy. Still from maintainability perspective initializing LifRules with a LiftConfig may imply lots of assignments (unless LiftRules will reference a LiftConfig in which case LiftRules code needs to change to use LiftConfig) or when we'd want to expose some new stuff we'd have to add it in two different places LiftConfig toexpose it to users and LiftRules so that Lift code to use that. Yes, there'd be quite a few assignments, but with a nifty unit test you could secure that everything is used properly. Cheers, Viktor Otherwise not a bad idea ... Br's, Marius On Dec 14, 5:21 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: David, sounds reasonable. So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense. In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append outside of boot. I suggest my approach described previously. (Injecting an initialization context into boot and use that to configure LiftRules, then we don't expose the mutativity in LiftRules. Result: No runtime exceptions, no confusion on when to configure the webapp etc. I have no idea what this means or how to translate it into code. Can you give me an example of code that injects an initialization context into boot? class Boot { def boot(val lc: LiftConfig) = { add all configuration to LiftConfig } } and then in the code that lookups, creates and calls Boot.boot (haven't got access to the repository on this machine) just add/modify the code in the bootstrap loader: { val boot = ...//Lookup and create Boot instance val lc = LiftConfig() //(1) boot.boot(lc) //(2) LiftRules.init(lc) //(3) } (1) : Must create LiftConfig (this object is the placeholder of the configuration= (2) : Pass it into the boot-call (3) : Initialize LiftRules with the configuration prepared by the boot-call result: No need to expose mutability in LiftRules (since we discovered that changing stuff while the webserver was up and running had few applications at best) More clear now? Remeber that this is only a friendly suggestion to an issue brought up by someone else in this thread. If such suggestions are superflous, please just tell me so and I'll keep my trap shut. Cheers, Viktor Input? Cheers, Viktor On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I have not had a single instance of wanting to change global application behavior at runtime. I cannot think of use case for such a feature. On the other hand, the idea that your program behavior is stable from the first HTTP request on makes a lot of sense to me. It means tests work because the tests don't have to worry about the behavior of the program changing. The same n steps will lead to the same result. If anyone can come up with a use case for globally changing program behavior during program execution, I'm all ears, but barring that, once the boot phase is over, the stuff in LiftRules should be frozen. Thanks, David On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Marius, David was able to help me out. In the future, I will have to dig myself out of the situation. For those Lift developers that are not 'committers' it is harder to know how to proceed. Perhaps in the future, the breaking changes should include a little more detail on which signatures have been changed and how they can be transformed. In any case, I am happy there is this group to ask for help! Thanks. Dan On Dec 15, 12:08 am, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry Dan ... There were too many changes in LiftRules. You should be able to determine real quick what changed in LiftRules since the variables naming is more or less the same. If you can not fix your code can you please copy-paste it here ? ... in this way I may be able to help. Br's, Marius On Dec 15, 1:55 am, Dano dan_ole...@yahoo.com wrote: Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its private logic. Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be put in the RulesSeq object. But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit how Lift calls these PF's? ... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong. --j On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its private logic. Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be put in the RulesSeq object. But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit how Lift calls these PF's? ... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong. --j On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. I meant something like: def boot(val lc : LiftContext) = { //prepend/append,configure everything on lc } And then when the LiftFilter runt boot: { val lc = LiftContext(/*servletContext and stuff goes here*/) boot(lc) LiftRules.init(lc) } And then only have non-append/prependable stuff in LiftRules? But really, what is it a problem that lift is reconfigurable during runtime? I thought that was kind of cool? Cheers, Viktor Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its private logic. Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be put in the RulesSeq object. But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit how Lift calls these PF's? ... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong. --j On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. I meant something like: def boot(val lc : LiftContext) = { //prepend/append,configure everything on lc } And then when the LiftFilter runt boot: { val lc = LiftContext(/*servletContext and stuff goes here*/) boot(lc) LiftRules.init(lc) } And then only have non-append/prependable stuff in LiftRules? But really, what is it a problem that lift is reconfigurable during runtime? I thought that was kind of cool? As I said I don't have strong opinions on this. It was DPP's suggestion and personally I kind of like it which does not mean that things can not change :) ... AFAIC reconfiguration at runtime does not make a whole lot of sense because: 1. We'd have to expose other functions to allow people to also remove their function not only prepend append them 2. I do not see what kinds of problems runtime reconfiguration really solve (I'm only referring on the current RulesSeq members). I haven't encounter a practical need but if you have please let me know. 3. Dynamic behavior can happen inside user's functions without allowing runtime reconfiguration. Just my 2 cents ... P.S. If the general consensus is to remove this restriction I have no problem removing it ... so more thoughts/perspectives on this are welcomed. I have no opinion, I'm just offering solutions :) Cheers, Viktor Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its private logic. Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be put in the RulesSeq object. But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit how Lift calls these PF's? ... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong. --j On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. I meant something like: def boot(val lc : LiftContext) = { //prepend/append,configure everything on lc } And then when the LiftFilter runt boot: { val lc = LiftContext(/*servletContext and stuff goes here*/) boot(lc) LiftRules.init(lc) } And then only have non-append/prependable stuff in LiftRules? But really, what is it a problem that lift is reconfigurable during runtime? I thought that was kind of cool? As I said I don't have strong opinions on this. It was DPP's suggestion and personally I kind of like it which does not mean that things can not change :) ... AFAIC reconfiguration at runtime does not make a whole lot of sense because: 1. We'd have to expose other functions to allow people to also remove their function not only prepend append them 2. I do not see what kinds of problems runtime reconfiguration really solve (I'm only referring on the current RulesSeq members). I haven't encounter a practical need but if you have please let me know. 3. Dynamic behavior can happen inside user's functions without allowing runtime reconfiguration. Just my 2 cents ... P.S. If the general consensus is to remove this restriction I have no problem removing it ... so more thoughts/perspectives on this are welcomed. Cheers, Viktor Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its private logic. Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be put in the RulesSeq object. But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit how Lift calls these PF's? ... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong. --j On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public doesn't necessary mean that it should not have its private logic. Also, if RulesSeq are always made up of either Functions or PartialFunctions, maybe we should enforce that at a type level, and the helper methods on Seqs of PFs that now exist in the NamedPF object can be put in the RulesSeq object. But what would be the benefit? .. except that it would simplify a bit how Lift calls these PF's? ... to me distinguishing between functions and partial functions here by using Either or even using different RulesSeq traits would not bring much benefits ... but I hope I'm wrong. --j On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes in LiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction of LiftRules variables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius -- Viktor Klang Senior Systems Analyst --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
David, sounds reasonable. So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense. In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append outside of boot. I suggest my approach described previously. (Injecting an initialization context into boot and use that to configure LiftRules, then we don't expose the mutativity in LiftRules. Result: No runtime exceptions, no confusion on when to configure the webapp etc. Input? Cheers, Viktor On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I have not had a single instance of wanting to change global application behavior at runtime. I cannot think of use case for such a feature. On the other hand, the idea that your program behavior is stable from the first HTTP request on makes a lot of sense to me. It means tests work because the tests don't have to worry about the behavior of the program changing. The same n steps will lead to the same result. If anyone can come up with a use case for globally changing program behavior during program execution, I'm all ears, but barring that, once the boot phase is over, the stuff in LiftRules should be frozen. Thanks, David On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. I meant something like: def boot(val lc : LiftContext) = { //prepend/append,configure everything on lc } And then when the LiftFilter runt boot: { val lc = LiftContext(/*servletContext and stuff goes here*/) boot(lc) LiftRules.init(lc) } And then only have non-append/prependable stuff in LiftRules? But really, what is it a problem that lift is reconfigurable during runtime? I thought that was kind of cool? As I said I don't have strong opinions on this. It was DPP's suggestion and personally I kind of like it which does not mean that things can not change :) ... AFAIC reconfiguration at runtime does not make a whole lot of sense because: 1. We'd have to expose other functions to allow people to also remove their function not only prepend append them 2. I do not see what kinds of problems runtime reconfiguration really solve (I'm only referring on the current RulesSeq members). I haven't encounter a practical need but if you have please let me know. 3. Dynamic behavior can happen inside user's functions without allowing runtime reconfiguration. Just my 2 cents ... P.S. If the general consensus is to remove this restriction I have no problem removing it ... so more thoughts/perspectives on this are welcomed. Cheers, Viktor Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is 'toList' (which just returns 'rules') defined as private[http] when 'rules' itself is public? Why would you use toList in the lift app code? ...RulesSeq is mainly about adding user functions to lift. If rules itself is public
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.comwrote: David, sounds reasonable. So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense. In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append outside of boot. I suggest my approach described previously. (Injecting an initialization context into boot and use that to configure LiftRules, then we don't expose the mutativity in LiftRules. Result: No runtime exceptions, no confusion on when to configure the webapp etc. I have no idea what this means or how to translate it into code. Can you give me an example of code that injects an initialization context into boot? Input? Cheers, Viktor On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I have not had a single instance of wanting to change global application behavior at runtime. I cannot think of use case for such a feature. On the other hand, the idea that your program behavior is stable from the first HTTP request on makes a lot of sense to me. It means tests work because the tests don't have to worry about the behavior of the program changing. The same n steps will lead to the same result. If anyone can come up with a use case for globally changing program behavior during program execution, I'm all ears, but barring that, once the boot phase is over, the stuff in LiftRules should be frozen. Thanks, David On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. I meant something like: def boot(val lc : LiftContext) = { //prepend/append,configure everything on lc } And then when the LiftFilter runt boot: { val lc = LiftContext(/*servletContext and stuff goes here*/) boot(lc) LiftRules.init(lc) } And then only have non-append/prependable stuff in LiftRules? But really, what is it a problem that lift is reconfigurable during runtime? I thought that was kind of cool? As I said I don't have strong opinions on this. It was DPP's suggestion and personally I kind of like it which does not mean that things can not change :) ... AFAIC reconfiguration at runtime does not make a whole lot of sense because: 1. We'd have to expose other functions to allow people to also remove their function not only prepend append them 2. I do not see what kinds of problems runtime reconfiguration really solve (I'm only referring on the current RulesSeq members). I haven't encounter a practical need but if you have please let me know. 3. Dynamic behavior can happen inside user's functions without allowing runtime reconfiguration. Just my 2 cents ... P.S. If the general consensus is to remove this restriction I have no problem removing it ... so more thoughts/perspectives on this are welcomed. Cheers, Viktor Cheers, Viktor Nit-pick: why is
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.comwrote: David, sounds reasonable. So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense. In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append outside of boot. I suggest my approach described previously. (Injecting an initialization context into boot and use that to configure LiftRules, then we don't expose the mutativity in LiftRules. Result: No runtime exceptions, no confusion on when to configure the webapp etc. I have no idea what this means or how to translate it into code. Can you give me an example of code that injects an initialization context into boot? class Boot { def boot(val lc: LiftConfig) = { add all configuration to LiftConfig } } and then in the code that lookups, creates and calls Boot.boot (haven't got access to the repository on this machine) just add/modify the code in the bootstrap loader: { val boot = ...//Lookup and create Boot instance val lc = LiftConfig() //(1) boot.boot(lc) //(2) LiftRules.init(lc) //(3) } (1) : Must create LiftConfig (this object is the placeholder of the configuration= (2) : Pass it into the boot-call (3) : Initialize LiftRules with the configuration prepared by the boot-call result: No need to expose mutability in LiftRules (since we discovered that changing stuff while the webserver was up and running had few applications at best) More clear now? Remeber that this is only a friendly suggestion to an issue brought up by someone else in this thread. If such suggestions are superflous, please just tell me so and I'll keep my trap shut. Cheers, Viktor Input? Cheers, Viktor On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I have not had a single instance of wanting to change global application behavior at runtime. I cannot think of use case for such a feature. On the other hand, the idea that your program behavior is stable from the first HTTP request on makes a lot of sense to me. It means tests work because the tests don't have to worry about the behavior of the program changing. The same n steps will lead to the same result. If anyone can come up with a use case for globally changing program behavior during program execution, I'm all ears, but barring that, once the boot phase is over, the stuff in LiftRules should be frozen. Thanks, David On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on those lists. Or another, perhaps more suitable suggestion: make boot() have an InitializationContext parameter that's only available in the scope of boot, and then the problem should disappear? How would the problem disappear? ... I mean after boot people would still be able to add their functions (from API perspective) and they would be surprised that their functions are not called and yet lift just allowed them to do that. I meant something like: def boot(val lc : LiftContext) = { //prepend/append,configure everything on lc } And then when the LiftFilter runt boot: { val lc = LiftContext(/*servletContext and stuff goes here*/) boot(lc) LiftRules.init(lc) } And then only
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
So LiftConfig would take the role of LiftRules from API perspective meaning that LiftRules could be completely hidden from Lift users but available internally to Lift only ? Still from maintainability perspective initializing LifRules with a LiftConfig may imply lots of assignments (unless LiftRules will reference a LiftConfig in which case LiftRules code needs to change to use LiftConfig) or when we'd want to expose some new stuff we'd have to add it in two different places LiftConfig toexpose it to users and LiftRules so that Lift code to use that. Otherwise not a bad idea ... Br's, Marius On Dec 14, 5:21 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.comwrote: David, sounds reasonable. So being able to call prepend/append after boot() makes no sense. In the light of htis, it shouldn't be possible to call the prepend/append outside of boot. I suggest my approach described previously. (Injecting an initialization context into boot and use that to configure LiftRules, then we don't expose the mutativity in LiftRules. Result: No runtime exceptions, no confusion on when to configure the webapp etc. I have no idea what this means or how to translate it into code. Can you give me an example of code that injects an initialization context into boot? class Boot { def boot(val lc: LiftConfig) = { add all configuration to LiftConfig } } and then in the code that lookups, creates and calls Boot.boot (haven't got access to the repository on this machine) just add/modify the code in the bootstrap loader: { val boot = ...//Lookup and create Boot instance val lc = LiftConfig() //(1) boot.boot(lc) //(2) LiftRules.init(lc) //(3) } (1) : Must create LiftConfig (this object is the placeholder of the configuration= (2) : Pass it into the boot-call (3) : Initialize LiftRules with the configuration prepared by the boot-call result: No need to expose mutability in LiftRules (since we discovered that changing stuff while the webserver was up and running had few applications at best) More clear now? Remeber that this is only a friendly suggestion to an issue brought up by someone else in this thread. If such suggestions are superflous, please just tell me so and I'll keep my trap shut. Cheers, Viktor Input? Cheers, Viktor On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM, David Pollak feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, I have not had a single instance of wanting to change global application behavior at runtime. I cannot think of use case for such a feature. On the other hand, the idea that your program behavior is stable from the first HTTP request on makes a lot of sense to me. It means tests work because the tests don't have to worry about the behavior of the program changing. The same n steps will lead to the same result. If anyone can come up with a use case for globally changing program behavior during program execution, I'm all ears, but barring that, once the boot phase is over, the stuff in LiftRules should be frozen. Thanks, David On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:53 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, Viktor Klang viktor.kl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 14, 3:02 am, Jorge Ortiz jorge.or...@gmail.com wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but... what's the rationale, again, for throwing an exception after boot? Is there a real danger to some or all RulesSeqs being mutable after boot? If some, then those rules should selectively be protected. Even if they're all dangerous, there are better (i.e., type safe) ways of protecting RulesSeqs from mutation than just throwing an exception. This was actually DPP's suggestion. I'm not sure why would someone mutate them after boot but I'm totally opened if there is a strong case for allowing that. I do not have strong feelings about this so changing it would be trivial. Still I kind of like it this way. What other ways of protecting mutations after boot are you referring? ... something like ignore it and do nothing? Hmm, how about locking them by havign a paralell lazy val? val somePf : RuleSeq = Nil; lazy val runtimeSomePf = somePf.toList Then prepending/appending on the somePf AFTER runtimeSomePf has been dereferenced won't make a difference. (runtimeSomePf would be used by Lift internally if that isn't clear enough :) ) Still we'd allow useless strong references on
[Lift] Re: *** MAJOR BREAKING CHANGES *** LiftRules abstractions
Marius, Is there someway you can communicate what the 'from' and 'to' changes are so that I can have a chance at being able to fix my now broken code? Dan On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, Marius marius.dan...@gmail.com wrote: All, I committed a bunch of changes inLiftRules. In a previous thread Jorge suggested the abstraction ofLiftRulesvariables. Lists of functions are now abstracted by RulesSeq trait, which contains prepend and append functions. Note that if you're calling prepend/append functions after boot they will throw an exception. If there are compelling reasons not to do this please let us know. This is just a mechanism to enforce the use of these functions on startup. Br's, Marius --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Lift group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---