[AOLSERVER] Asterisk and AOLserver

While reading the previous postings I stumbled upon multiple mentioning of multi protocol support and asterisk, therefore I assume people on this list are knowledgeable about this topic. Here is what we need: We run a CRM system on top of AOLserver. The CRM system contains the phone numbers of th

Re: [AOLSERVER] Hosting, discussions, branching, modules

After reading throught the digest of the discussion on this list and remembering Dossy's statement about "donating a server", I'm more than inclined to ask the OpenACS Core Team to allow the creation of an AOLserver community at openacs.org or host a service on one of our machines. For one, I think

[AOLSERVER] Better documentation of available config options (was Re: AOLserver facelift.)

On 2005.02.09, Tim Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it is of any use to anyone (it worked around about 4.03 4.04 I think) > here's my sample config file with all of the server config values in it and > some of the common modules: > > http://www.site-speed.com/aolserver/sample_nsd.tcl One thi

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

> -Original Message- > From: AOLserver Discussion > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Jackson > Sent: 09 February 2005 00:55 > To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift. > > Dossy quoted Tom: > > > > 6. Split the discussion between C level source

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

> -Original Message- > From: AOLserver Discussion > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dossy Shiobara > Sent: 08 February 2005 23:21 > To: AOLSERVER@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift. > > On 2005.02.08, Tim Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If someone is

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver, NTLM, Apache+mod_proxy, and FastCGI (was Re: multi protocol question)

> On 2005.02.08, John Sequeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be clear, this isn't /replacing/ AOLserver with Apache or IIS, but > simply allowing Apache or IIS to front an AOLserver. I can totally > understand someone wanting to fund the necessary development to make > OpenACS or .LRN work with

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver, NTLM, Apache+mod_proxy, and FastCGI (was Re: multi protocol question)

On 2005.02.08, John Sequeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are correct. My point was only that AOLServer would get the header > unmodified, and then not be able to do anything useful with it lacking > something like nsntlm. If IIS sat in front (i.e. using FastCGI), IIS > could do the ntlm neg

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver, NTLM, Apache+mod_proxy, and FastCGI (was Re: multi protocol question)

Dossy Shiobara wrote: On 2005.02.08, John Sequeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are you sure about this? Do you have network sniffs showing what's actually happening between the browser and the server(s)? If Apache's mod_proxy is smart and its Keep-Alive is smart, then fronting IIS and AOLserver wit

[AOLSERVER] AOLserver Tutorials on the Wiki (was Re: AOLserver facelift.)

On 2005.02.08, Tom Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Without discussion on the website about how to use AOLserver, via > Tutorials, etc. [...] I urge anyone and everyone to contribute whatever tutorials they can write: http://aolserver.com/wiki/Tutorials There's a few things already there

[AOLSERVER] AOLserver, NTLM, Apache+mod_proxy, and FastCGI (was Re: multi protocol question)

On 2005.02.08, John Sequeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >When you say "integrated security" are you talking about the NTLM auth > >scheme for HTTP? As long as mod_proxy properly handles HTTP Keep-Alive, > >and recent Apache mod_proxy does, NTLM auth should work just fine. > > > > We're talk

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

Dossy quoted Tom: > > > 6. Split the discussion between C level source code and applications. > > > > There's few enough AOLserver developers who deal at the C > > code level that having a separate mailing list In reply, On Tuesday 08 February 2005 14:01, Tim Moss wrote: > I too don't think spl

Re: [AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

When you say "integrated security" are you talking about the NTLM auth scheme for HTTP? As long as mod_proxy properly handles HTTP Keep-Alive, and recent Apache mod_proxy does, NTLM auth should work just fine. We're talking about different things. In Unix, you can use Apache/mod_proxy + AOLS

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 13:23, Lamar Owen wrote: > HOWEVER, the AS 2.x docs were and are much better than anything since. > Basically everything you mention, Tom, was addressed fully in the AS2.x > docs. I still have the AS2.3.3 doc set somewhere in PDF form. My copy in html format:

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On 2005.02.08, Tim Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If someone is offering to donate freely, commercial-grade hosting on > > AOLserver, please contact me. > > Surely AOL could provide this as a way of thanking the efforts of the > community developers? The downside of this is that no one from o

Re: [AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

On 2005.02.08, John Sequeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I believe for most of the world's departmental web servers which run > IIS, mod_proxy is not really a good option. Although it runs well on > Windows and could sit in front of IIS/AOLServer, it breaks important > things like integrated se

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

After lurking on the list for quite some time I have to say that I strongly second many of Tom's comments. PLEASE, don't take any of this personally none of it is aimed at individuals, and none is intended as anything other than constructive criticism. My thoughts mixed in below: > -Origin

Re: [AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

Dossy Shiobara PANOPTIC.COM> writes: > To clarify, you want AOLserver to act as a FastCGI client? Can you > explain the benefit of this approach, rather than having the front-end > webserver simply proxy HTTP requests to AOLserver? This is where the > Apache team is going with Tomcat with their

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Friday 04 February 2005 16:34, Tom Jackson wrote: > C. Working examples of database integration, expecially ODBC and if > possible MySQL. > Other examples are mentioned as foreign: OACS, for instance. Note that ACS, > and OACS are responsible for a large percentage of users, and these > projec

Re: [AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

On 2005.02.08, Rick Cobb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We're interested in using this work, too. A lot of our deployments > (especially those that are focused on getting live [no-refresh] > updates via JavaScript) end up being slowed down by the requirement to > adapt to Javascript cross-domain secu

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver manpages as HTML

On 2005.02.08, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 08 February 2005 17:54, Dossy Shiobara wrote: > > > - Convert docs in Tcl doctools format so you get instant HTML and > > > nroff output and deliver that with the distro > > > > I'm not convinced that the Tcl doctools format

Re: [AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

On 2005.02.08, John Sequeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a question regarding the multi-protocol patches discussed on > the list in August. Was a decision made on these? Is it likely that > AOLServer core would include this support anytime soon? It depends on how you define "soon" but my

Re: [AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

We're interested in using this work, too. A lot of our deployments (especially those that are focused on getting live [no-refresh] updates via JavaScript) end up being slowed down by the requirement to adapt to Javascript cross-domain security; we'd like to be able to run as an appserver behind

[AOLSERVER] multi protocol question

I have a question regarding the multi-protocol patches discussed on the list in August. Was a decision made on these? Is it likely that AOLServer core would include this support anytime soon? I'm investigating whether it would be an option to add FastCGI support to AOLServer. I and a few others

Re: [AOLSERVER] ns_encrypt error

On 2005.02.08, Brooks Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm running 4.03 and using a binary from aolserver.com. Not sure where > to go from here. Thanks for the information. Everyone, Brooks NOT using the nsencrypt module that's in SourceForge and available from aolserver.com. He's using a

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver manpages as HTML (was Re: AOLserver facelift.)

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 17:54, Dossy Shiobara wrote: > > - Convert docs in Tcl doctools format so you get instant HTML and > > nroff output and deliver that with the distro > > I'm not convinced that the Tcl doctools format is the way to go > Have you ever tried doctools? Why are you not con

Re: [AOLSERVER] the "something" that is not right with the AOLserver project ... was Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

BNA uses AOLserver to produce publishing artifacts on web pages. We publish subscription content on the web. We use the server to produce HTML over the HTTP protocol. Our subscribers log into the web site and read / print what they need to get their own jobs done. End of story. The 5 line code

Re: [AOLSERVER] the "something" that is not right with the AOLserver project ... was Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:39:28 -0500, Andrew Piskorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please, *OF COURSE* the 3 guys who want to add multi-protocol support > to the AOLserver core are a minority of AOLserver users! *YOU* are a > minority of AOLserver users too, Dossy. Right. There's a huge difference

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 09:31, Dossy Shiobara wrote: > On 2005.02.08, Tom Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > NOTE2: users of virtual servers running 4.0.8 or 4.0.9 should upgrade to > > 4.0.10, due to a DOS bug. If you need info, email me directly. > > Unless this is a different DoS issue t

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 18:32, Andrew Piskorski wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:12:06AM -0800, Tom Jackson wrote: > > > > * Some kind of watchdog functionality > > > > > Actually only a built in module would work very well, and fast. Every > > solution > > I've seen is a true hack, which i

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 09:12:06AM -0800, Tom Jackson wrote: > > * Some kind of watchdog functionality > > > Actually only a built in module would work very well, and fast. Every solution > I've seen is a true hack, which is why it needs to be in core. A while back, didn't Zoran offer a simple pa

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 02:24, Stephen Deasey wrote: sourceforge, plus the following additional items: > > Added a simple cookie API in C and Tcl. > Check out a tcl version of cookie code. It reads the Cookie header and writes both Set-Cookie and Set-Cookie2 headers. I believe it parses correc

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On 2005.02.08, Tom Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NOTE2: users of virtual servers running 4.0.8 or 4.0.9 should upgrade to > 4.0.10, due to a DOS bug. If you need info, email me directly. Unless this is a different DoS issue than the one we discussed, the "fix" requiring defaultservers was a

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 06:20, Bernd Eidenschink wrote: > * Having a 'real' config file with _all_ default values. > Maybe the current grep-thru-code way could somehow be simplified. > Check my new, 'complete' config file: starting at jnm.tcl Config file is broken i

Re: [AOLSERVER] ns_encrypt error

In a message dated 2/8/2005 11:47:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nope.  Are you using AOLserver 3.5.x or 4.x?  I never updated the sourceto run under 4.x so no idea what problems could be caused. I'm running 4.03 and using a binary from aolserver.com. Not sure where to go

[AOLSERVER] AOLserver manpages as HTML (was Re: AOLserver facelift.)

On 2005.02.08, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Convert docs in Tcl doctools format so you get instant HTML and > nroff output and deliver that with the distro I'm not convinced that the Tcl doctools format is the way to go, but if all we want is HTML versions of the AOLserver man

Re: [AOLSERVER] ns_encrypt error

On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 11:33 -0500, Brooks Robertson wrote: > Hmm, I have a pub and priv key in the nsecrypt dir. The log also > indicates that the module was successfully loaded at startup. Would > bad keys cause an "invalid command name" error on ns_encrypt? Nope. Are you using AOLserver 3.5.x o

Re: [AOLSERVER] ns_encrypt error

In a message dated 2/7/2005 11:29:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:   Hmm, I have a pub and priv key in the nsecrypt dir. The log also indicates that the module was successfully loaded at startup. Would bad keys cause an "invalid command name" error on ns_encrypt? The error

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:16:58AM -0800, Jim Wilcoxson wrote: > Hi - I read the entire thread mentioned below, and missed any mention of > anyone saying the AS maintainers would not accept FastCGI. Read the end John's 2005-02-07 post to that thread again. http://openacs.org/forums/message-view

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:04:24AM +0100, Bernd Eidenschink wrote: > > I think the reason behind both issues is because the proposed > > contributions weren't that great. I'm sure this statement tweaks a lot > > of people, but I think it's the truth. > > I'm not the expert to verify that on the C

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

Hi - I read the entire thread mentioned below, and missed any mention of anyone saying the AS maintainers would not accept FastCGI. The other thing I guess I'm confused about, is that CGI is implemented as an AS module. Why can't someone write a FastCGI module, and whoever wants it can load it to

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

>> This is my wish-list. Do whatever you consider appropriate. >> It is *far* from complete, but I guess I have to start with something. >> (I have no reason of hiding it, I'm not secret service): * A debug/development mode that reveals all running filters, triggered filters, better insight in

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

> > - Add hooks to plugin alternate filesystems (Tcl VFS) so you can serve > stuff out of zipfiles, for example > This in on my wish list as well. It would make plug-in storage for tDAV much easier. Right now tDAV cannot take advantage of fastpath since it makes C calls to the filesystem (for ob

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:06:21 +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is my wish-list. Do whatever you consider appropriate. > It is *far* from complete, but I guess I have to start with something. > (I have no reason of hiding it, I'm not secret service): Interesting list. Here'

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

Hi Dossy, > I think the reason behind both issues is because the proposed > contributions weren't that great. I'm sure this statement tweaks a lot > of people, but I think it's the truth. I'm not the expert to verify that on the C level, but the situation was: There was a solution done by aD fro

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 04:25:46PM -0500, Dossy Shiobara wrote: > > Let's admit it, AS will never get so popular as apache or IIS and all > > efforts for making it popular without something that will > > differentiate it from apache is waste of time. > > Maybe I'm deluded, but I'm not ready to adm

Re: [AOLSERVER] AOLserver facelift.

On Monday 07 February 2005 23:25, Dossy Shiobara wrote: > > Seems fair. I assume you will be putting responses bypassing this > > public list in some place where everybody can see them, right? > > Unfortunately, no. I thought about this and decided that I want to > respect people's desire to rema