Nabble - Squeak - IO

Flow port

2007-04-03T10:11:50Z

I have been really busy at work & had no time to work on porting Flow.
I put everything I have at http://www.hhhh.org/~asparagi/Flow/; please
feel free to move forward with it. Something similar to this loaded
into 3.2 at one point, and it may work to at least some extent, but it
needs unit tests before anyone will be able to tell whether it works for
sure. Obviously the further one gets from 3.2 the less likely it will
work. I think you need to file in Flow3aDependencies first, then
Flow3a. Good luck, and sorry I didn't just post this incrementally as I
worked. :(

Brenda

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

RE: help with HTTPClient

2006-10-30T01:03:00Z

Hi Steve! (and lots of other people, sorry, just keeping the CC as it
was)

You wrote Bert is coming to help you so I guess these questions are
totally obsolete :) but anyway:

1. What Squeak image version and VM are you using as your plugin?

2. As you write you use the browser API (in HTTPClient) today
(proxy/https etc), so AFAIK most of HTTPClient code is not used - it
instead communicates with the browser using a selection of plugin
primitives and gets the result using a StandardFileStream on a file
handle given by the plugin (or something like that). So AFAIK there is
no Socket code being run at all in the Squeak image this way. Could you
specify your problem more concretely?

Also further:

"Steve Hunter" <Steve@...> wrote:
[SNIP]
> We also want to move our html
> UI up to "AJAX style" html UI's (or essentially getting back to
> client-server programming using a browser as the client and therefore need
> that solid networking layer) So, I'd encourage the community to pick the
> best of what people have done and build a common, solid, HTTPClient layer.

I am not sure what your server is currently (I don't think you mentioned
it) - is it also Squeak based?

Even though I agree we need to clean up the HTTP client code in the
image (and I am leaning towards using Steve Waring's code) there is one
important clarification to be made:

If you move away from the Squeak plugin and start using Ajax in some
form then there is *no Squeak* running in the browser, only on the
server (given that you use Seaside on the server side for example). And
the Scriptaculous package with Seaside (Which is the Ajax solution most
Squeakers use today) does not use any of the HTTPClient code on the
server side.

Or in other words - there are several Ajax style Squeak apps out there
today that are quite robust - for example: www.dabbledb.com

regards, Göran

PS. If I can help in any way, I follow the io-list. But it sounds to me
that you need to first figure out what is going wrong with the browser
API in the plugin. And Bert is well versed in that stuff.
_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

RE: help with HTTPClient

2006-10-28T21:03:55Z

Hello Todd,

Thanks for responding. Our application is a “full blow web app”, the back-end is VAST web connect. The Graphical Modeler (essentially a web based case tool) is a Squeak Plugin application (pr file) which communicates with the back-end, providing a different UI for the same underlying content served by the VAST back-end (so we have a “forms” based html UI, and a “LinesNboxes case tool” UI based on Squeak).

The requirements are pretty simple, the Squeak application needs to fetch images, and it needs to get and put xml.

We need proxy and https support, hence using HTTPClient which relegates proxy and https work to the browser, so essentially the application gets/puts content on a socket.

Colin Curtin had the same (negative) comments with respect to the native HTTPClient in Squeak and said the community was considering replacing it, and the implementations he was aware of are below….I guess yours can now be added.

Squeak native
Steve Waring's
Colib Curtin
LibCurl

My first objective is to solve the issue at hand, which we think is a timing related problem somewhere between Squeak and the browser, but not sure yet. However, since our (Commercial) application relies on a client side application (squeak plugin), communicating over http to the server, we absolutely need a rock-solid networking layer. We also want to move our html UI up to “AJAX style” html UI’s (or essentially getting back to client-server programming using a browser as the client and therefore need that solid networking layer) So, I’d encourage the community to pick the best of what people have done and build a common, solid, HTTPClient layer. FWIW, our application is being deployed throughout a company that lives by the slogan; the network is the computer, and our networking bits do not impress them at the moment. But…the application running over the net is impressive so, hopefully, if we can fix the network bits, all will be forgotten and we can get back to impressing based on what the application can do.

regards,

Steve

From: Todd Blanchard [mailto:tblanchard@...]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2006 8:15 PM
To: Steve Hunter
Subject: Re: [Io] help with HTTPClient

I know that HTTPClient is an awful hack and there are better solutions. I've put some time into killing off HTTPClient and replacing it with one of the better built HTTP protocol stacks.

What is the range of requirements? Just fetching? Handling puts? Is it a full blown web app? Did you use Seaside or something else?

-Todd Blanchard

On Oct 28, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Steve Hunter wrote:

All,

Our product (http://www.agilense.com/documents/EA-GraphicalModeler_final.pdf) is built on Squeak. It is essentially a web based case tool which gets/sends its contents via HTTPClient. It is being deployed to a large Solaris based customer and we are having problems in the HTTPClient layer. Solution to this is urgent, I am flying Bert Freudenberg in from Germany tomorrow (Sunday 29^th ) to Colorado to help solve the problem (Bert worked on the Squeak Plugin on Unix). However, it would be very useful to have a team of folks that know the HTTPClient/sockets layer that we can communicate questions with as we work thru the issue. Is there anybody out there?

regards,

Steve

<image001.gif>

Home of EA WebModeler, the easiest solution to
collaboratively document and manage enterprise architecture.

Stephen Hunter Chief Technical Officer	Agilense, Inc. 4277 Berwick Place, Woodbridge, VA 22192
Steve@Agilense.com Direct: +1 703-878-2475 Mobile:+1 703-508-3421	Tel: +1 800-803-9840 Fax: +1 703-878-3856

<image001.gif>

_______________________________________________

Io mailing list

Io@...

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

help with HTTPClient

2006-10-28T16:55:10Z

All,

regards,

Steve

Home of EA WebModeler, the easiest solution to
collaboratively document and manage enterprise architecture.

Stephen Hunter Chief Technical Officer	Agilense, Inc. 4277 Berwick Place, Woodbridge, VA 22192
Steve@Agilense.com Direct: +1 703-878-2475 Mobile:+1 703-508-3421	Tel: +1 800-803-9840 Fax: +1 703-878-3856

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-10-05T00:42:31Z

I think it it Steve Waring, yes. The categories start with SW but
the classes all begin with Spt.

I don't think it is too many classes - however, it lacks a nice
facade and end user api. The classes model all of the 'things' in
the Http protocol, but there is no really easy to use end user api.
This could be fixed and I'd like to see a virtual web browser built
on top of it which also handles http-meta refreshes and caching.

Meanwhile, I started implementing the existing api on top of it. Its
not yet usable, its just something I started and then got distracted
from by income generating activities.

-Todd

On Oct 4, 2006, at 2:10 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:

> hi todd
> what SW stands for? Steve Warring ?
>
>> Yep, that's pretty much how I see it. Whoever can get to the work
>> and finish it wins.
>>
>> I have actually started integrating the SWHttpClient, implementing
>> all existing web stuff on top of it, but I have a ways to go and
>> am short on time now. I could probably get it done about the
>> first of the year.
>>
>> I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of
>> classes, it is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching,
>> and has proxy/auth/cookie support.
>
> Lot of classes is not a desease. :)
> if this is not too much classes
>
> Stef
>
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-10-04T12:58:51Z

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it. Whoever can get to the work
and finish it wins.

I have actually started integrating the SWHttpClient, implementing
all existing web stuff on top of it, but I have a ways to go and am
short on time now. I could probably get it done about the first of
the year.

I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of
classes, it is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching, and
has proxy/auth/cookie support.

On Oct 4, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Ken Causey wrote:

> http://map.squeak.org/packagebyname/HTTPClient
>
> I'll let Todd comment on the status since if anyone is looking into
> this
> at the current time, it is him. His original comment that this
> package
> was the default choice was a mistake since in fact we (the I/O
> team) had
> never gotten so far as to make any such decision. At the current
> time I
> would say that anyone that cares to take the time to put together a
> solid test suite for any of the available choices (assuming they don't
> already have one) and do the work to at least enable the ability to
> plug
> it in to the rest of the Squeak HTTP-using architecture will warrant a
> high degree of attention and support from the I/O team.
>
> Ken
>
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:32 +0000, J J wrote:
>> So does anyone know the status of this? What is Steve Waring's http
>> package? Is it a true replacement for the HTTP system? Is it all
>> pure
>> squeak?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> JJ
>>
>>> From: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...>
>>> Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>> list<squeak-dev@...>
>>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>> list<squeak-dev@...>
>>> CC: Ken Causey <ken@...>
>>> Subject: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
>>> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:23:29 -0700
>>>
>>> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff
>>> in favor
>>> of the Steve Waring's http client package.
>>>
>>> Right Ken?
>>>
>>> -Todd Blanchard
>>>
>>> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>>>
>>>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
>>>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
>>>> improve...No
>>>> giant step just a tiny and simple one
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise,
>>>>>> because MC will
>>>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
>>>>>> digest
>>>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
>>>>>> reworked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just
>>>>> awful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Io mailing list
> Io@...
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-10-04T12:48:40Z

http://map.squeak.org/packagebyname/HTTPClient

I'll let Todd comment on the status since if anyone is looking into this
at the current time, it is him. His original comment that this package
was the default choice was a mistake since in fact we (the I/O team) had
never gotten so far as to make any such decision. At the current time I
would say that anyone that cares to take the time to put together a
solid test suite for any of the available choices (assuming they don't
already have one) and do the work to at least enable the ability to plug
it in to the rest of the Squeak HTTP-using architecture will warrant a
high degree of attention and support from the I/O team.

Ken

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:32 +0000, J J wrote:

> So does anyone know the status of this? What is Steve Waring's http
> package? Is it a true replacement for the HTTP system? Is it all pure
> squeak?
>
> Thanks,
> JJ
>
> >From: Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...>
> >Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev@...>
> >To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev@...>
> >CC: Ken Causey <ken@...>
> >Subject: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)
> >Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:23:29 -0700
> >
> >I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in favor
> >of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >
> >Right Ken?
> >
> >-Todd Blanchard
> >
> >On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >
> >>So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >>Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble improve...No
> >>giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >>
> >>>>Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because MC will
> >>>>send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
> >>>>digest
> >>>>is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely reworked.
> >>>
> >>>Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
> >>>
> >>>Philippe
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Re: Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-15T16:30:08Z

Proxies, I'd have to check. What does 'work with proxies' mean? Socks proxies?

Cookies, chunked encoding and basic/digest authentication works.
Here's a bigger list:

HTTPClient supports:
- Persistent connections
- Automatic redirection handling
- Access to Output/Input streams
- Cookies
- Authentication
- - Basic
- - Digest
- Common HTTP methods
- - GET
- - POST
- - PUT
- - Multipart POST

On 9/15/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:

> Does it work with proxies, cookies, http 1.1/chunked, and do
> authentication?
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Colin Curtin wrote:
>
> > IIRC, I have facades for every part of HTTPSocket (#httpGet, etc).
> > They just have to use "HCFacade" instead. In fact, that's part of the
> > key to understanding my package - look at how I implemented the
> > HTTPSocket stuff, then realize that life doesn't have to be so hard.
> >
> > If HTTPSocket has been upgraded since late 2003, then maybe I don't
> > have everything.
> >
> > :D
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:
> >> Ah, well if you want to help make sure its in there - rewrite all
> >> users of HTTPSocket to use your stuff. Sure way to make it
> >> happen. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Colin Curtin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey, you mean mine? :)
> >> >
> >> > I'm still around, and if it's included I could go do a refactor and
> >> > maybe implement more stuff one day.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Colin
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:
> >> >> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I
> >> confess
> >> >> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
> >> >> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation
> >> with it?
> >> >>
> >> >> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
> >> >> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
> >> >> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and
> >> getting
> >> >> clearance for inclusion.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but
> >> >> never any
> >> >> > decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in
> >> April and
> >> >> > there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm
> >> >> aware
> >> >> > of.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ken
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
> >> >> >> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that
> >> >> stuff in
> >> >> >> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Right Ken?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -Todd Blanchard
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >> >> >>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
> >> >> >>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise,
> >> because
> >> >> >>>>> MC will
> >> >> >>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that
> >> >> fails,
> >> >> >>>>> digest
> >> >> >>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
> >> >> >>>>> reworked.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just
> >> >> awful.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Philippe
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Io mailing list
> >> >> Io@...
> >> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-15T16:22:48Z

Does it work with proxies, cookies, http 1.1/chunked, and do
authentication?

On Sep 15, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Colin Curtin wrote:

> IIRC, I have facades for every part of HTTPSocket (#httpGet, etc).
> They just have to use "HCFacade" instead. In fact, that's part of the
> key to understanding my package - look at how I implemented the
> HTTPSocket stuff, then realize that life doesn't have to be so hard.
>
> If HTTPSocket has been upgraded since late 2003, then maybe I don't
> have everything.
>
> :D
>
>
> On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:
>> Ah, well if you want to help make sure its in there - rewrite all
>> users of HTTPSocket to use your stuff. Sure way to make it
>> happen. :-)
>>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Colin Curtin wrote:
>>
>> > Hey, you mean mine? :)
>> >
>> > I'm still around, and if it's included I could go do a refactor and
>> > maybe implement more stuff one day.
>> >
>> >
>> > Colin
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:
>> >> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I
>> confess
>> >> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
>> >> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation
>> with it?
>> >>
>> >> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
>> >> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
>> >> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and
>> getting
>> >> clearance for inclusion.
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but
>> >> never any
>> >> > decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in
>> April and
>> >> > there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm
>> >> aware
>> >> > of.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ken
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
>> >> >> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that
>> >> stuff in
>> >> >> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Right Ken?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Todd Blanchard
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
>> >> >>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
>> >> >>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise,
>> because
>> >> >>>>> MC will
>> >> >>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that
>> >> fails,
>> >> >>>>> digest
>> >> >>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
>> >> >>>>> reworked.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just
>> >> awful.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Philippe
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Io mailing list
>> >> Io@...
>> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
>> >>
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Re: Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-15T14:46:37Z

IIRC, I have facades for every part of HTTPSocket (#httpGet, etc).
They just have to use "HCFacade" instead. In fact, that's part of the
key to understanding my package - look at how I implemented the
HTTPSocket stuff, then realize that life doesn't have to be so hard.

If HTTPSocket has been upgraded since late 2003, then maybe I don't
have everything.

:D

On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:

> Ah, well if you want to help make sure its in there - rewrite all
> users of HTTPSocket to use your stuff. Sure way to make it happen. :-)
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Colin Curtin wrote:
>
> > Hey, you mean mine? :)
> >
> > I'm still around, and if it's included I could go do a refactor and
> > maybe implement more stuff one day.
> >
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:
> >> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I confess
> >> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
> >> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation with it?
> >>
> >> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
> >> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
> >> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and getting
> >> clearance for inclusion.
> >>
> >> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
> >>
> >> > There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but
> >> never any
> >> > decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
> >> > there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm
> >> aware
> >> > of.
> >> >
> >> > Ken
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
> >> >> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that
> >> stuff in
> >> >> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right Ken?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Todd Blanchard
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >> >>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
> >> >>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
> >> >>>>> MC will
> >> >>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that
> >> fails,
> >> >>>>> digest
> >> >>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
> >> >>>>> reworked.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just
> >> awful.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Philippe
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Io mailing list
> >> Io@...
> >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
> >>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-14T21:19:55Z

Ah, well if you want to help make sure its in there - rewrite all
users of HTTPSocket to use your stuff. Sure way to make it happen. :-)

On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Colin Curtin wrote:

> Hey, you mean mine? :)
>
> I'm still around, and if it's included I could go do a refactor and
> maybe implement more stuff one day.
>
>
> Colin
>
>
> On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:
>> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I confess
>> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
>> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation with it?
>>
>> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
>> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
>> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and getting
>> clearance for inclusion.
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>>
>> > There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but
>> never any
>> > decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
>> > there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm
>> aware
>> > of.
>> >
>> > Ken
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
>> >> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that
>> stuff in
>> >> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
>> >>
>> >> Right Ken?
>> >>
>> >> -Todd Blanchard
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
>> >>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
>> >>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
>> >>>>> MC will
>> >>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that
>> fails,
>> >>>>> digest
>> >>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
>> >>>>> reworked.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just
>> awful.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Philippe
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Io mailing list
>> Io@...
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
>>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-14T17:37:14Z

Ah, OK. I just hate to see someone put time into rewriting the
current HTTPSocket when we have free code lying around. Especially
since fixing the socket won't likely get us support for proxies,
cookies, auth, and all that other web content stuff browsers do
nowadays.

I'm a little busy just now but I have had a chance to look over the
libraries in detail recently - perhaps I'll just make an executive
decision and do it soon.

-Todd

On Sep 14, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Ken Causey wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 16:16 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
>> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I confess
>> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
>> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation with it?
>
> I think anyone who provides a finished solution that is any
> appreciable
> amount better than the current solution will be welcomed. If you have
> an interest in putting the time into it then I applaud you and will
> likely support any solution you come up with.
>
>> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
>> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
>> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and getting
>> clearance for inclusion.
>
> No need to apologize, it doesn't appear that any of the rest of us
> have
> put forth any more time or effort into this issue. I think though if
> you go back to the discussion in April
>
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/io/2006-April/date.html
>
> you will find that the clearance was provided
>
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/io/2006-April/000105.html
>
> and if you drill down to the current release it lists SqueakL as the
> license
>
> http://map.squeak.org/package/8644a5ff-923c-438f-b5b0-a281de346040/
> autoversion/1
>
> Let me note however that I merely pursued this to remove that
> particular
> impediment to it being considered along with the other options. I
> didn't evaluate it any further and certainly did not mean to indicate
> that I preferred it above any of the other solutions.
>
> Ken
>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>>
>>> There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but
>>> never any
>>> decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
>>> there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm
>>> aware
>>> of.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
>>>> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in
>>>> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
>>>>
>>>> Right Ken?
>>>>
>>>> -Todd Blanchard
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
>>>>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
>>>>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
>>>>>>> MC will
>>>>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that
>>>>>>> fails,
>>>>>>> digest
>>>>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
>>>>>>> reworked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just
>>>>>> awful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Philippe
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-14T17:33:58Z

Hey, you mean mine? :)

I'm still around, and if it's included I could go do a refactor and
maybe implement more stuff one day.

Colin

On 9/14/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@...> wrote:

> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I confess
> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation with it?
>
> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and getting
> clearance for inclusion.
>
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>
> > There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but never any
> > decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
> > there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm aware
> > of.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
> >> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in
> >> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >>
> >> Right Ken?
> >>
> >> -Todd Blanchard
> >>
> >> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >>
> >>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
> >>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >>>
> >>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
> >>>>> MC will
> >>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
> >>>>> digest
> >>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
> >>>>> reworked.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
> >>>>
> >>>> Philippe
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Io mailing list
> Io@...
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-14T17:32:11Z

On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 16:16 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
> Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I confess
> I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
> pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation with it?

I think anyone who provides a finished solution that is any appreciable
amount better than the current solution will be welcomed. If you have
an interest in putting the time into it then I applaud you and will
likely support any solution you come up with.

> I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
> follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
> were talking with the author of one or the other packages and getting
> clearance for inclusion.

No need to apologize, it doesn't appear that any of the rest of us have
put forth any more time or effort into this issue. I think though if
you go back to the discussion in April

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/io/2006-April/date.html

you will find that the clearance was provided

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/io/2006-April/000105.html

and if you drill down to the current release it lists SqueakL as the
license

http://map.squeak.org/package/8644a5ff-923c-438f-b5b0-a281de346040/autoversion/1

Let me note however that I merely pursued this to remove that particular
impediment to it being considered along with the other options. I
didn't evaluate it any further and certainly did not mean to indicate
that I preferred it above any of the other solutions.

Ken

>
> On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:
>
> > There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but never any
> > decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
> > there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm aware
> > of.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
> >> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in
> >> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
> >>
> >> Right Ken?
> >>
> >> -Todd Blanchard
> >>
> >> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
> >>
> >>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> >>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
> >>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >>>
> >>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
> >>>>> MC will
> >>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
> >>>>> digest
> >>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
> >>>>> reworked.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
> >>>>
> >>>> Philippe
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment

Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-14T17:16:34Z

Oh, I thought we had decided on the HC client. Although, I confess
I've been looking at both. Would the right thing to do be to just
pick one and replace the existing HTTPSocket implementation with it?

I really would like to see HTTPSocket die and I'm sorry I didn't
follow through on that last spring. For some reason I thought you
were talking with the author of one or the other packages and getting
clearance for inclusion.

On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Ken Causey wrote:

> There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but never any
> decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
> there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm aware
> of.
>
> Ken
>
> On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:
>> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in
>> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
>>
>> Right Ken?
>>
>> -Todd Blanchard
>>
>> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>>
>>> So why a group of guy start to fix it!
>>> Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
>>> improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
>>>
>>>>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
>>>>> MC will
>>>>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
>>>>> digest
>>>>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely
>>>>> reworked.
>>>>
>>>> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
>>>>
>>>> Philippe
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

Re: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

2006-09-14T09:58:11Z

There was discussion of replacing it within the IO team, but never any
decision as to what to replace it with. That was back in April and
there's been no further discussion or action since then that I'm aware
of.

Ken

On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 01:23 -0700, Todd Blanchard wrote:

> I was under the impression we were going to deprecate that stuff in
> favor of the Steve Waring's http client package.
>
> Right Ken?
>
> -Todd Blanchard
>
> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:21 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
>
> > So why a group of guy start to fix it!
> > Let's try to step by step little peeble by little peeble
> > improve...No giant step just a tiny and simple one
> >
> >>> Note that this is not doing you any good security-wise, because
> >>> MC will
> >>> send the basic-auth user:password anyway, and only if that fails,
> >>> digest
> >>> is tried. HTTPSocket authentication needs to be completely reworked.
> >>
> >> Not only authentication, everything. The whole class is just awful.
> >>
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
Io mailing list
Io@...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/io

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment