November 1999 - XEmacs-Beta - XEmacs Mailing List Archives

Re: [21.2] LDAP add and delete functions + interrupt fixes 26 years, 1 month

William M. Perry

Oscar Figueiredo <Oscar.Figueiredo(a)di.epfl.ch> writes: > >>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes: > > >> Perhaps, but I think that the code to do anything ldap-ish would > >> still look very ldap-ish as opposed to abstract-database-ish. > > Hrvoje> I agree with Bill. Abstract interfaces are a nice thing up to > Hrvoje> a point, i.e. as long as they serve to us and not the other way > Hrvoje> around. > > Hrvoje> If LDAP serves a purpose totally different than a flat > Hrvoje> database, it's quite fine to have a different interface for the > Hrvoje> two. > > Just to add my 2 cts, I also like abstraction and uniform interfaces > (after all EUDC is a simple attempt at that) but I agree 200% with Bill > and Hrvoje. The LDAP APIs are still evolving, adhering to them is the > simple way to go. Even if we devised a good interface above the current > API now, nothing guarantees we could easily fit forthcoming evolutions > into it. I, for one, won't go that way but I won't discourage anyone > that would like to implement such an interface. After spitting out those ideas this morning, I think you could make it fit fairly easily, but whether anyone thinks the costs are worth it. There IS code out there that uses the existing LDAP routines (Emacs/W3, EUDC, etc), but nothing that really uses the db routines (can anyone contradict this? I couldn't find anything), so... If we reworked the database routines like I suggested, you could write the lisp-level database routines and layer them on top of LDAP to experiment with. Then you could see which one makes more sense. The whole database.c needs to get reworked anyway, and probably moved to a module. I don't know if I'll have time to do it or not though. Damn job. :) -Bill P.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: JavaScript support... 26 years, 1 month

Matt Curtin

>>>>> On 15 Nov 1999 08:39:47 -0500, >>>>> wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) said: BillP> Increasingly, getting javascript'd web pages to even display BillP> correctly in w3 is hellish. :( And we can't much longer blame the site creators who use it, as the stuff is being sanctioned now (i.e., HTML 4 DTDs and ECMA standards). Of course, we could just throw away all of the JavaScript before trying to display the page. :-) But that wouldn't be the Right Thing. -- Matt Curtin cmcurtin(a)interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [21.2] LDAP add and delete functions + interrupt fixes 26 years, 1 month

Jan Vroonhof

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes: > > Perhaps, but I think that the code to do anything ldap-ish would > > still look very ldap-ish as opposed to abstract-database-ish. > > I agree with Bill. Abstract interfaces are a nice thing up to a > point, i.e. as long as they serve to us and not the other way around. In fact, given that LDAP is the general protocol, a single interface should probably mean that you should make POD (plain old Databases) look like LDAP and not the other way around. EDBC.el anyone? Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Char-related crashes (hopefully) fixed 26 years, 1 month

Jan Vroonhof

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes: > Then we can make C-q insert Latin 1 characters in binary files. What > definitely doesn't make sense is C-q always inserting Latin 1 > characters for 128-255 range. The problem is that the user may change the coding system only later. > For me it is sometimes useful to insert Latin 2 characters by number, > and I really have no idea what numbers Mule assigns to Latin 2 > characters. Yes. Maybe we should just document that doing the thing I mentioned above is the wrong thing to do and you should make sure buffer-file-coding-system is set correctly before doing C-q. i.e. treat C-q like external I/O and handle it like that with respect to all the coding system settings. Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [BUG] `scroll-up' command broken in 21.2-b20 (AIX 4.3.2) 26 years, 1 month

ALTMARK＠de.ibm.com

Doesn't look like that ... (At least as far as I can say.) I recompiled giving configure `--with-scrollbars=athena' and also '--with-scrollbars=no'. No difference. --- Markus Alt IBM Laboratory Boeblingen, Germany sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) on 11/12/99 08:51:22 AM Please respond to sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) To: xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org cc: (bcc: Markus Alt/Germany/IBM) Subject: Re: [BUG] `scroll-up' command broken in 21.2-b20 (AIX 4.3.2) >>>>> "MA" == ALTMARK <ALTMARK(a)de.ibm.com> writes: MA> On my Linux build of 21.2-b20, it works, too. But on AIX, I see this strange MA> behaviour which is quite annoying as scrolling should be considered one of your MA> 'basic rights' in an editor ... :-( Motif fuckage? -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

1 participants
0 comments

Re: [HEADS UP] movemail locking overhaul ahead 26 years, 1 month

Michael Sperber

I'm not sure I'm seeing through the RMS #ifdef maze in movemail: What mail locking method should be the default on Cygwin? (Please reply to me directly as well --- I'm not subscribed to xemacs-nt.) -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

2 participants
1 comments

Re: [21.2] LDAP add and delete functions + interrupt fixes 26 years, 1 month

Hrvoje Niksic

wmperry(a)aventail.com (William M. Perry) writes: > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes: > > > >>>>> "-BP" == William M Perry <wmperry(a)aventail.com> writes: > > > > -BP> To merge the LDAP code, you would have to do a major overhaul > > -BP> of the existing database code, and I'm not sure you would be > > -BP> able to get the full power of LDAP without making the > > -BP> 'normal' databases pretty difficult to use. > > > > OK, that's why it might be hard. It still sounds like it's a good > > idea to me. > > Perhaps, but I think that the code to do anything ldap-ish would > still look very ldap-ish as opposed to abstract-database-ish. I agree with Bill. Abstract interfaces are a nice thing up to a point, i.e. as long as they serve to us and not the other way around. If LDAP serves a purpose totally different than a flat database, it's quite fine to have a different interface for the two.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Char-related crashes (hopefully) fixed 26 years, 1 month

Hrvoje Niksic

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes: > Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes: > > > I don't think there really are many people in Latin * environments > > who want C-q <something> to mean "insert a Latin 1 character". > > I am not sure. Don't forget that latin-1 is currently noconv-unix > alias binary. Then we can make C-q insert Latin 1 characters in binary files. What definitely doesn't make sense is C-q always inserting Latin 1 characters for 128-255 range. For me it is sometimes useful to insert Latin 2 characters by number, and I really have no idea what numbers Mule assigns to Latin 2 characters.

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Char-related crashes (hopefully) fixed 26 years, 1 month

Jan Vroonhof

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)iskon.hr> writes: > I don't think there really are many people in Latin * environments who > want C-q <something> to mean "insert a Latin 1 character". I am not sure. Don't forget that latin-1 is currently noconv-unix alias binary. I think there are lot of case where you use C-q where you are only interested in the byte that actually ends up in the file. i.e. C-x C-f newfile C-q 201 C-x RET b binary C-x C-s Jan

1 participants
0 comments

Re: Char-related crashes (hopefully) fixed 26 years, 1 month

Hrvoje Niksic

Yoshiki Hayashi <t90553(a)m.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp> writes: > Make new function which does int-to-char conversion > correctly according to the language environment. [...] > For C-q, I'm not for changing it's original definition, since it > might confuse people who are expecting Latin-1 in other language > environment I don't think there really are many people in Latin * environments who want C-q <something> to mean "insert a Latin 1 character". The vast majority will want to get their "native" character. The function you propose above would be mostly useless, as `make-char' already does the job, with some work required to convert the "language environment" to a charset. > and typing just 1 integer doesn't make sense for multibyte world. I don't leave in the multibyte word, so I want to type 1 integer.

1 participants
0 comments

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

XEmacs-Beta November 1999