How's it going with 2.1?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How's it going with 2.1?

aparajita
Administrator
Hi all,

Just wondering who is using 2.1 and how it is going so far. If I don't
get any more problem reports by the end of next week I will release it.

Regards,

    Aparajita
    Victory-Heart Productions
    [hidden email]
    www.aparajitaworld.com



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How's it going with 2.1?

Flemming Andersen
on 10/26/02 8:40 AM, Aparajita Fishman wrote:

> Just wondering who is using 2.1 and how it is going so far. If I don't
> get any more problem reports by the end of next week I will release it.

I have been using 2.1 in testing since you announced the beta on Oct 21. The
only problem I had was fixing my code to compensate for the change in
functionality of automatic relations.

One thing I would like to see in this version is the script timeout being
caught by the A4D error handler so I can display a custom error page. I'm
also having trouble setting the Log Level to catch execution errors. I set
it to 7 but that doesn't seem to work.

Anyhow, 2.1 appears very stable and is up to your usual high standards. Well
Done!

------------------------------------------------
Flemming Andersen     AKTIV Software Corporation
[hidden email]   723 Paskin Way
Tel: 250.727.3442     Victoria, BC  V8Z 6N4, Canada
Fax: 250.727.3740     http://www.aktiv.com


Received: from [24.90.121.110] (HELO aparajitaworld.com)
  by agniserver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9)
  with ESMTP id 272695 for [hidden email]; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:37:25 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:33:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Active4d-dev] ITK shell hooks
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v546)
From: Aparajita Fishman <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>
Message-Id: <[hidden email]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.546)
Sender: [hidden email]
Errors-To: [hidden email]
X-BeenThere: [hidden email]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [hidden email]
List-Help: <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:[hidden email]>
List-Subscribe: <http://aparajitaworld.com/mailman/listinfo/active4d-dev>,
        <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Active4D Developer Discussion List <active4d-dev.aparajitaworld.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://aparajitaworld.com/mailman/listinfo/active4d-dev>,
        <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://aparajitaworld.com/pipermail/active4d-dev/>

>> I will be adding new hooks to the shell - one after the request is
>> received, one after execution.

> This would cover our needs if this data includes the IP address of the
> client making the connection and any cookies.

All of that data is in the headers, but at the point the hook is being
called now, the headers have not yet been parsed. It would probably be
much more useful if I parsed the headers first and then called the
hook, passuing you the headers in arrays.


> Just a thought: would it be clearer to write two method names-
>
> A4d_ITK_GetRequestHeader ( ->Blob )
> A4d_ITK_GetRequestBody ( ->Blob )
>
> or just:
>
> A4d_ITK_GetRequest ( ->BlobHeader; ->BlobBody )

If I change the scheme as noted above, it would become like this:

A4D_ITK_RequestHook(
     ioHeaderNames: Text Array;
     ioHeaderValues: Text Array;
     ioBody: BLOB)


> For comparison, WebObjects has three hooks: one on getting the
> request, one before executing the page, one after executing the page.
> But we only ever use the last one, as it still gives us the
> opportunity to return a different page anyway.

I will be adding the first and last. In effect you have the second in
the On Execute Start handler.

Regards,

    Aparajita
    Victory-Heart Productions
    [hidden email]
    www.aparajitaworld.com


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How's it going with 2.1?

aparajita
Administrator
In reply to this post by aparajita
> I have been using 2.1 in testing since you announced the beta on Oct
> 21. The
> only problem I had was fixing my code to compensate for the change in
> functionality of automatic relations.

Do you find the new approach an improvement?


> One thing I would like to see in this version is the script timeout
> being
> caught by the A4D error handler so I can display a custom error page.

I could easily add it now, please submit it in the issue tracker.


>  I'm
> also having trouble setting the Log Level to catch execution errors. I
> set
> it to 7 but that doesn't seem to work.

If you can reproduce it please submit a report in the issue tracker.

Issue tracker: http://www.aparajitaworld.com/mantis

Regards,

    Aparajita
    Victory-Heart Productions
    [hidden email]
    www.aparajitaworld.com