On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, David Wheeler wrote:
> None of Kineticode's customers have reported this problem including
> PIRT. And there are several hundred thousand documents behind that,
> excluding PIRT. I guess you didn't report it because you couldn't
> replicate it. I remember you mentioning it, th
On Aug 11, 2004, at 10:51 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
You must be blessed. There's a whole class of data-loss bugs that I
know I reported but neither of us could replicate. Once we decided
that 1.4.6 was our last upgrade it seemed like a waste of your time to
keep bugging you. A good example would be
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:50 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> > How can I be so sure? I've worked with big complex systems running on
> > both databases. I've watched Bricolage completely destroy user data
> > despite using PostgreSQL's transaction support.
>
>
I'm a
* start with postgres approx 1996
- it was out there and simple...
* migrated to mysql (for speed) approx 1998
- was gazillions of times faster than postgres
(postgres was slooow for the average transaction)
* migrated back to postgres approx 2000
- postgres improved vastly in
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, David Wheeler wrote:
> To whom did you report them? I don't recall you running into any bugs, only
> features you were used to in MySQL but were missing in PostgreSQL.
On the PostgreSQL mailing-list. Two that jump to mind which I'm
absolutely sure I reported:
- pg_dump pr
> > you are kidding right?
>
> Not at all. That doesn't mean I expect to convince anyone though.
> This is the kind of wisdom that usually only comes from experience!
I'll ignore that...
> > ACID capabilites and all that...
> > proper locking semantics...
> > long history with native support fo
On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:50 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
How can I be so sure? I've worked with big complex systems running on
both databases. I've watched Bricolage completely destroy user data
despite using PostgreSQL's transaction support.
You did? Why was there never a bug report? I have not seen Brico
On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:04 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
MySQL is, in my opinion, the best free database. It's definitely
better than PostgreSQL and I should know, I spent more than a year and
a half working with it on the Bricolage project. Of course, how one
defines "better" is subjective. Here are a fe
On Aug 11, 2004, at 7:09 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
I expect that Bricolage will be ported to Windows shortly after
mod_perl 2
ships with robust thread support (which is unlikely in 2.0.0),
especially now
that PostgreSQL 8.0 will be Win32 native.
Really? I wonder why anyone would bother!
Ch-ching. ;-
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Mathew Robertson wrote:
> you are kidding right?
Not at all. That doesn't mean I expect to convince anyone though.
This is the kind of wisdom that usually only comes from experience!
> ACID capabilites and all that...
> proper locking semantics...
> long history with native
you are kidding right?
ACID capabilites and all that...
proper locking semantics...
long history with native support for transactions...
proper SQL transaction semantics...
As you said, people can make spaghetti out of anything - how this makes MySQL
'better', I dont understand.
Mathew
> > >
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Chisel Wright wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:56:08PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > > Also it seems to be MySQL specific. Did I read that wrong?
> >
> > Nope, you got that right too.
>
> Out of interest, why MySQL? I know that lack of Postgres support is one
> reason tha
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, David Wheeler wrote:
> I expect that Bricolage will be ported to Windows shortly after mod_perl 2
> ships with robust thread support (which is unlikely in 2.0.0), especially now
> that PostgreSQL 8.0 will be Win32 native.
Really? I wonder why anyone would bother!
-sam
---
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Chisel Wright wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:56:08PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
Also it seems to be MySQL specific. Did I read that wrong?
Nope, you got that right too.
Out of interest, why MySQL? I know that lack of Postgres support is one
reason that we didn't consider Kran
On Aug 11, 2004, at 3:56 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
Yes, and of course. Very little software written for Unix-esque
systems (like Krang and Bricolage) works on Windows. I don't see any
reason why it couldn't be made to work on Windows, but I see very
little reason to do so!
I expect that Bricolage wil
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:56:08PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > Also it seems to be MySQL specific. Did I read that wrong?
>
> Nope, you got that right too.
Out of interest, why MySQL? I know that lack of Postgres support is one
reason that we didn't consider Krang recently when looking for a co
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Robert wrote:
> I noticed a couple of things from the site. I don't see it working on
> Windows using Apache? Is this possible?
Yes, and of course. Very little software written for Unix-esque
systems (like Krang and Bricolage) works on Windows. I don't see any
reason why it
"Sam Tregar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, David Wheeler wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a comparison of Krang and an older version of Bricolage:
> > >
> > > http://krang.sf.net/docs/krang_vs_bric.ht
Chisel Wright wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 08:26:39AM -0500, Brad Cathey wrote:
Initially I was a strict comments-only syntax user. Over the years I've
changed my view a little.
I now use comments-only syntax everywhere *except* inside tag
attributes, e.g.:
as opposed to
">
which screws up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chisel Wright wrote:
|
|
| or
|
|
| But I figure that when I'm inside an attribute I need to remove as much
| 'fluff' as possible to keep it legible.
That's where I use vanguard_compatibility_mode => 1 during load_tmpl - it's
%myimage% syntax is
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> > Here's a comparison of Krang and an older version of Bricolage:
> >
> > http://krang.sf.net/docs/krang_vs_bric.html
>
> Make that an _ancient_ version of Bricolage. So ancient that the
> compariso
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:58:13PM +0200, Markus Spring wrote:
> That's where I use vanguard_compatibility_mode => 1 during load_tmpl - it's
> %myimage% syntax is unsurpassed short, but of course misses the possibility to
> decide about escaping...
Our HTML bunnies seem to struggle enough with stu
On Aug 10, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
Here's a comparison of Krang and an older version of Bricolage:
http://krang.sf.net/docs/krang_vs_bric.html
Make that an _ancient_ version of Bricolage. So ancient that the
comparison is far from accurate and no longer really relevant.
Cheers,
Davi
Dale W. Hanzelka wrote:
Are these two items equivalent?
> Brad Cathey wrote:
No. Sorry about the confusion. the first one will put the
contents of the var into an HTML comment and will never be seen
by the view. The second one will hide the H::T tag from a
validator/editor. The second is what
Are these two items equivalent?
Thanks,
Dale
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [htmltmpl] Question about syntax
Brad Cathey wrote:
> I've been using H::T for about a year ha
>
>
>
>This works well if you are using an (X)HTML editor that
>specifically recognized HTML and nothing else. This will just
>tell it to skip over you TMPL_VAR tags. Would also be better if
>you put your templates through some kind of validation before
>using them.
Of course, it only works w
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 08:26:39AM -0500, Brad Cathey wrote:
> I've been using H::T for about a year have noticed variations in syntax. For
> example:
>
>
>
> vs.
>
> (no quotes)
>
> vs.
>
>
>
> and finally:
>
> (drop 'name=')
>
> I like the last oneshort and simple. Pros and cons, esp
Brad Cathey wrote:
I've been using H::T for about a year have noticed variations in syntax. For
example:
This fit's better as HTML/XHTML since it has a tag name and the
attribute it quoted. Probably the best if you are planning on
using other advance attributes of the tag (like ESCAPE, etc).
(
I've been using H::T for about a year have noticed variations in syntax. For
example:
vs.
(no quotes)
vs.
and finally:
(drop 'name=')
I like the last oneshort and simple. Pros and cons, especially in my last
example.
Thanks.
---
S
29 matches
Mail list logo
