On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:03 PM, David Godfrey wrote:
> Fairly much as I thought, I would still propose that remote_addr should
> be present for all client types, as you could well have, for example a
> thick client that served an unusual interface; maybe a fully automated
> multi point warehous
Chris Travers wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Godfrey wrote:
>> Chris Travers wrote:
>>> So if we worry about that we have to track it. This suggests to me
>>> the following modification:
>>>
>>> struct LedgerSMB::Session, {
>>> id => '$',
>>> token => '$',
>>> db
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Godfrey wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>>
>> So if we worry about that we have to track it. This suggests to me
>> the following modification:
>>
>> struct LedgerSMB::Session, {
>> id => '$',
>> token => '$',
>> dbclient => '$', # Pg type ine
Chris Travers wrote:
>
> So if we worry about that we have to track it. This suggests to me
> the following modification:
>
> struct LedgerSMB::Session, {
> id => '$',
> token => '$',
> dbclient => '$', # Pg type inet, connection of client connecting to Pg
> type => '$', #ty
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>> LedgerSMB::Web::Request is designed specifically to provide HTTP
>> wrappers for workflow scripts. Thick clients wouldn't use it.
>
> I'm not sure this is really the best way to handle workflow - what about
> workflow
Chris Travers wrote:
> LedgerSMB::Web::Request is designed specifically to provide HTTP
> wrappers for workflow scripts. Thick clients wouldn't use it.
I'm not sure this is really the best way to handle workflow - what about
workflow in the non-web (CLI, thick client, etc.) scenario? OTOH, I
d
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Chris Travers wrote:
>> Here are some proof of concept struct definitions for 2.0. What do folks
>> think?
>
> I'm assuming you are indicating data types, not literal strings of '$'
> et al., right? Working on that assumption, for now.
$
Chris Travers wrote:
> Here are some proof of concept struct definitions for 2.0. What do folks
> think?
I'm assuming you are indicating data types, not literal strings of '$'
et al., right? Working on that assumption, for now.
> Also do you like right-justification or left justification of h
Here are some proof of concept struct definitions for 2.0. What do folks think?
Also do you like right-justification or left justification of hash keys?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
struct LedgerSMB::User, {
role_prefix => '$', # formerly from $request
username => '$', # normally
