2008/5/26 _why <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:47:39PM +0200, zimbatm wrote:
>> This is not that hard to do. Maybe I should add some shortening tricks
>> document.
>> I propose platterizing to be done only before release.
>
> No, let's not have rules. I don't feel comfortable wi
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 02:47:39PM +0200, zimbatm wrote:
> This is not that hard to do. Maybe I should add some shortening tricks
> document.
> I propose platterizing to be done only before release.
No, let's not have rules. I don't feel comfortable with having
coding standards or any protocol o
2008/5/25 Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Z,
>
> On May 25, 2008, at 5:47 AM, zimbatm wrote:
>
>>> I haven't touched camping.rb at all, do we really need to prove that it's
>>> a
>>> micro-framework? It just makes development/releasing harder. Let's just
>>> forget
>>> about the abridged
Hi Z,
On May 25, 2008, at 5:47 AM, zimbatm wrote:
I haven't touched camping.rb at all, do we really need to prove
that it's a
micro-framework? It just makes development/releasing harder. Let's
just forget
about the abridged version and rename camping-unabridged.rb to
camping.rb!
This is
Just wanted to comment a bit more :
2008/5/21 Magnus Holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I got rid of
> (a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-necessary files
> (lib/server/*.rb, fastcgi.rb & mongrel.rb).
This is good
"Magnus Holm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I got rid of
> (a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-necessary files
> (lib/server/*.rb, fastcgi.rb & mongrel.rb).
Yay!
Please tell me when rack/adapters/camping.rb
If you can point to areas to document or changes you are making that
need documentation, I'd be happy to write it for you.
--Jeremy
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Magnus Holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to be the leader. I just want to contribute to one of the
> sweetest
> frame
I don't want to be the leader. I just want to contribute to one of the sweetest
framework that exists in the Rubyverse!
I'm going to contribute with what I can, and I suck at writing documentation and
I have no intention to learn RDoc (ATM, maybe another day).
(I still think that _why is the true
2008/5/23 Magnus Holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So should I just merge/rebase everything to my master, so _why can merge
> it into his? Some more notes:
>
> * camping/db.rb -> camping/ar.rb
> * camping/session.rb -> camping/ar/session.rb
> * CookieSession -> camping/session.rb
>
> The documentation an
Does being implemented on top of Rack mean that Camping will get the
concurrency described on pages 17..21 of
http://yeahnah.org/files/rack-presentation-oct-07.pdf ?
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/lis
So should I just merge/rebase everything to my master, so _why can merge
it into his? Some more notes:
* camping/db.rb -> camping/ar.rb
* camping/session.rb -> camping/ar/session.rb
* CookieSession -> camping/session.rb
The documentation and the names (Camping::Session, Camping::ARSession?)
needs
2008/5/22 _why <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Splendid! If we can say Camping, the 3K Microframework, then I
> think we will really have a reason to bump the big number. I'll wait
> for a reaction from zimbatm, but I am euphoric about these changes.
Wasn't the one who codes who leads ? :)
__
> How is camping.rb created from camping-unabridged.rb? By hand?
Err.. yes. This is a kind of art you know ?
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
How is camping.rb created from camping-unabridged.rb? By hand? If that's
the case, you can't expect the compressed camping.rb to be maintained once
more than _why and zimbatm start wanting to contribute, you know? If it can
be done by script, then by all means let's do that and include that scri
> The problem is that almost all app require 'camping' and when bin/camping
> require 'camping-unabridged' things gets pretty messy.
Right, didn't thought about that.. well then we have to come up with a
Ruby2Ruby version, isn't it ?
___
Camping-list mai
The problem is that almost all app require 'camping' and when bin/camping
require 'camping-unabridged' things gets pretty messy.
(I just realized that bin/camping could monkey-patch require such that when
the --unabridged-flag is set it require 'camping-unabridged' instead of
'camping'. But that's
2008/5/22 Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So, it sounds like there's a few options:
>
> a) Automate the creation of the obfuscated version from the unabridged
> version
Last time I checked, Ruby2Ruby didn't recognize all camping constructs
but it might be better now.
> b) Tweak the system
I agree.
The obfuscation could probably be automated somehow with ParseTree and
ruby2ruby...I'm not entirely sure. It'd be fun to toy with though.
--Jeremy
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Manfred Stienstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2008, at 8:01 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:
>
>> I mu
On May 22, 2008, at 8:01 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:
I must agree that the obfuscation is really impressive (specially in a
presentation where you can include the full source on one slide). I
just don't like
to touch it.
I personally think that the esthetic properties of obfuscated source
is
Hi Magnus,
On May 22, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:
I must agree that the obfuscation is really impressive (specially in a
presentation where you can include the full source on one slide). I
just don't like
to touch it.
And unfortunately it doesn't evolve by itself.
I'm just tired of
I must agree that the obfuscation is really impressive (specially in a
presentation
where you can include the full source on one slide). I just don't like
to touch it.
And unfortunately it doesn't evolve by itself.
I'm just tired of renaming camping-unabridged.rb to camping.rb in order to test
the
On May 22, 2008, at 12:38 AM, _why wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 09:26:52PM +0200, Magnus Holm wrote:
I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I
got rid of
(a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-
necessary files
(lib/server/*.rb, fastcgi.rb & m
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 07:27:18AM +1930, Aníbal Rojas wrote:
> > ===
> > 4. Renaming camping-unabridged.rb to camping.rb?
> > ===
> >
> > I haven't touched camping.rb at all, do we really need to prove that it's a
> > micro-framework? It just makes development/releasing harder. Let's just
> > for
Excellent work; IMHO this makes camping a viable contender again!
+1 to your 2.0/2.1 plan
Jerry
Magnus Holm wrote:
===
5. Camping 2.0
===
Here's my plan:
* We agree on which of these four/three features we should implement
* _why or zimbatm (or someone who really knows Camping) double-checks
Camping.goes :Forward
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Magnus,
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Magnus Holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ===
> 1. Camping on Rack
> ===
>
> I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I got rid of
> (a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-necessary files
> (lib/server/*.rb, fast
I really think shorter escaping methods are important, see if you
can't include Rack::Utils or something
Aside from that, it all sounds yummy!
On 22/05/2008, at 8:32 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:
If you're going to build cookie sessions in to the core, it should
either do
the rails thing of using
> If you're going to build cookie sessions in to the core, it should either do
> the rails thing of using multiple cookies when one is not enough for the
> data, or raise a descriptive exception explaining why there's a problem and
> how switching to the database sessions thingo will solve that.
C
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 09:26:52PM +0200, Magnus Holm wrote:
> I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I got rid of
> (a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-necessary files
> (lib/server/*.rb, fastcgi.rb & mongrel.rb).
Splendid! If we can say Camping
Hi Magnus,
On May 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:
This is just some proposals, the community (aka YOU) have to decide
what we
should do. So what are your thoughts?
Awesome work! I say go for it. :-)
-enp
___
Camping-list mailing list
Impressive work.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Magnus Holm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ===
> 1. Camping on Rack
> ===
>
> I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I got rid
> of
> (a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-necessary
> files
> (lib/se
If you're going to build cookie sessions in to the core, it should
either do the rails thing of using multiple cookies when one is not
enough for the data, or raise a descriptive exception explaining why
there's a problem and how switching to the database sessions thingo
will solve that.
===
1. Camping on Rack
===
I've just finished rewriting Camping to use Rack in the "core". I got rid of
(a little less) than 1kB in camping.rb and removed lots of un-necessary files
(lib/server/*.rb, fastcgi.rb & mongrel.rb).
bin/camping does now only provide WEBrick, Mongrel and console-support
33 matches
Mail list logo
