Mochabot log - CommonJS IRC channel: #commonjs on irc.freenode.net

2010-03-29:

[0:02] <Dantman> ^_^ Finally an AXFR
[0:05] <Dantman> Yay, I can make that slave ns2 later and add some zones sometime... still waiting on that second ip
[0:08] <Dantman> T_T rackspacecloud can't migrate and ip to another server
[0:13] <Dantman> I'll have to make sure that whatever we do for allowing domains in Kommonwealth doesn't involve telling anyone to put an IP in an A record.
[1:16] <kriskowal> Dantman, so wiki.commonjs.org is down?
[1:30] <kriskowal> Dantman, so wiki.commonjs.org is down?
[1:33] <Dantman> Eh?
[1:35] <Dantman> Something is wrong with voltaire
[1:36] <Dantman> I can't restart it myself, I'll have to wait for greg to get my e-mail.
[1:37] <Dantman> T_T This means my own personal website is down.
[1:38] <Dantman> Well I'm going into work tomorrow anyways...
[1:42] <Wes-> Dantman: real sysops have serial port access
[1:42] <Wes-> Dantman: I have been remote adminning since ~98 and never had to go on-site in an emergency yet. :)
[1:43] <Dantman> I don't have access to the amazon account.
[1:43] <Wes-> "amazon"
[1:43] <Wes-> Oh, sigh
[1:44] <Wes-> Will 2010, "The Year of the Cloud" be remembered like September 1993?
[1:44] <Dantman> The gpg keys or whatever are also not exactly in known locations.
[1:44] <MisterN> september 1993 is remembered?
[1:44] <Wes-> MisterN: Yes, it is still september 1993
[1:45] <MisterN> cool, that means... we can do... whatever people did in september 1993
[1:45] <Wes-> right, drink and all night and skip classes! WHOOO !
[1:45] <Dantman> One of the reasons why I'm trying to move to rackspacecloud.
[1:45] <MisterN> i think i did what 5-year olds typically do
[1:45] <Dantman> I have access to that redwerks account.
[1:45] * Wes- tries to remember his Lambda-Moo password
[1:45] <MisterN> i had a half-birthday party! yay
[1:45] <MisterN> in september 1993
[1:46] <Dantman> Course, there's not much point there this time as I now have my own server.
[1:46] <MisterN> Dantman: your sites are still on the old one?
[1:46] <Wes-> mistern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
[1:46] <Dantman> I don't have anything on the new one yet.
[1:47] <Dantman> My stuff is still on the work dev server. And one or two really old, old, junk on my old vps.
[1:47] <Dantman> Right now I'm trying to migrate stuff from the vps.
[1:47] <Dantman> That includes DNS, my old SVN, and perhaps a few websites.
[1:48] <MisterN> Wes-: so that started the slow and painful death of usenet
[1:48] <Dantman> The VPS renew date is April 1st... So if I don't deal with that first, I'll have to pay for another year I won't be using.
[1:48] <MisterN> Wes-: fortunately usenet has been replaced by irc! *woo*
[1:48] <Wes-> MisterN: Yes -- this was also before even most geeks had used browsers
[1:48] <Wes-> MisterN: IRC *way* pre-dates 1993
[1:49] <MisterN> yeah but it also replaced usenet now
[1:49] <MisterN> in 1993 usenet still co-existed
[1:49] <Wes-> Not really, sadly
[1:49] <Wes-> Usenet has not been replaced in terms of both utility and social groupings
[1:49] <MisterN> that's what you get for taking my bad jokes seriously :)
[1:49] <Wes-> The explosion of the web and bandwidth has actually fragemented the community
[1:50] <Wes-> ah
[1:51] <MisterN> Wes-: but i guess usenet was nice but just not - to use fashionable terminology - scalable.
[1:51] <Wes-> I was thinking, I should start a cloud server service. It will run someting like UNIX, except the root user will be named Lando Calrissian
[1:52] <MisterN> Wes-: and it would be named Cloud City
[1:52] <Wes-> MisterN: Usenet is perfectly scaleable for what it was intended for. However, it was not intended for binaries.
[1:52] <MisterN> i have a vision!
[1:52] <Wes-> Where all men will be treated equally?
[1:52] <Dantman> And all computers are attached to our organs?
[1:53] <Wes-> I don't think so, if I had an organ I would attach it to a leslie
[1:54] <Dantman> Hmmm, ya, I prefer the floating screens idea...
[1:55] <Dantman> T_T Two monitors is too limiting...
[1:55] <Dantman> I want to be able to pull Firebug off the screen and put it beside FF without disrupting my text editor.
[2:05] <aho> get another monitor then
[2:05] <aho> 3 > 2
[2:05] <aho> :>
[2:15] <Dantman> T_T No ports...
[2:16] <Dantman> I have a computer connected to another via synergy that total to 3 screens (2 on main, 1 on the other), but of course that doesn't extend the screen... I've tried to see if I could get something virtual working but failed multiple itmes.
[3:55] <Dantman> Wes-, he rebooted the instances.
[3:56] <Dantman> Side question again, think I should move HTTP-Gateway to a commonjs proposal draft?
[6:48] <ondras> Wes-: btw, the js-ctypes api has nice syntax for CFunctions - they are actually a JS functions :)
[16:42] <Dantman> Hmmm, anyone want to tell me the trick to finding out if disk IO is being a bottleneck?
[16:42] <mikeal> it usually is :)
[16:43] <Dantman> heh
[16:43] <Dantman> I've been debating whether my issues with programs freezing is something fault of gnome, or something that could be fixed by getting a ssd.
[17:16] <Dantman> *sigh* Mem Used : 97.71%
[17:17] <Dantman> Guess I need an upgrade.
[17:17] <Dantman> Office computer has 3GB so that explains why it has no problems.
[17:21] <Dantman> I guess I wasn't completely wrong though... ^_^ If I had a SSD the swap usage would probably be faster *snicker*
[19:36] * Dantman wishes we would have named ourself something more like not-server-only-but-not-so-common-js T_T Transport which should be a simple protocol for a client loader and a server to load modules is being overwhelmed by people who just don't actually want modules...
[19:55] <jbrantly> Dantman: ?
[20:00] <Dantman> Have you seen the "Updated Transport proposals" thread? It's probably the largest thread in the entire mailing list... It's larger than the binary api brouhaha, or the jsgi discussion was...
[20:02] <jbrantly> Dantman: oh. I've seen it (but haven't read it all). I actually meant to go look at it in depth since I disagreed with something in Transport/C.
[20:03] <jbrantly> Dantman: To your knowledge, has anybody created a client-side loader that is actually compatible with the Modules spec? RequireJS isn't. I've seen some code snippets on the wiki but they're not complete. I was thinking about creating one.
[20:04] <Dantman> Chiron which was merged into Narwhal iirc...
[20:05] <Dantman> The wiki has a drilldown, you can look at impls that are for "web browsers'
[20:08] <kriszyp> RequireJS is compatible with Transport/C
[20:09] <kriszyp> I think James will support Transport/D, just still in flux
[20:09] <jbrantly> RequireJS doesn't follow the Modules spec as near as I can tell. For example, you return an exports object instead of appending to it.
[20:09] <kriszyp> it supports appending to an exports object
[20:09] <kriszyp> it supports both
[20:10] <kriszyp> he just shows returning an object in the examples in the docs because he likes that better
[20:11] <kriszyp> And I think maybe FlyScript's client side library will support one of the transport specs too.
[20:11] <kriszyp> not sure where that is at
[20:15] <jbrantly> kriszyp: I see. Good to know.
[20:16] <kriszyp> also, we are looking at integrating RequireJS into Dojo, so RequireJS support for the transport spec may eventually mean Dojo support for the transport spec.
[20:18] <jbrantly> ah well, there's always room for one more implementation :)
[20:22] <kriszyp> are you going to make one?
[20:22] <kriszyp> Indeed I think there is room for more
[20:24] <jbrantly> kriszyp: Yes. I like the concept of RequireJS, but I disagree with some of its principles, and I disagree with some stuff in Transport/C. I think it would be an interesting exercise.
[20:25] <kriszyp> are you thinking of one that is more focused on handling wrapped CommonJS modules (like transport/D)?
[20:27] <jbrantly> kriszyp: Probably Transport/B
[20:27] <kriszyp> well transport/D is basically just iterating on B
[20:28] <kriszyp> fixes/improvements
[20:28] <jbrantly> I might look more into transport/D, but it has the issue of enumerating objects which was specifically addressed in Draft 2 of /B
[20:29] <kriszyp> well JSON has survived the enumeration issue, so I think we can too ;)
[20:30] <jbrantly> kriszyp: true. I'll look more into /D
[20:30] <kriszyp> using object literals in javascript for arbitrary keys isn't exactly new
[20:31] <jbrantly> kriszyp: I know. And I know how to get around the IE bug. Just didn't want to :)
[20:31] <kriszyp> if you are writing a library, I would be more inclined to use it if it didn't code around the IE bug
[20:31] <kriszyp> I don't want to send extra bytes to the client, and it is pretty easy for me to refrain from using toString, etc for module names
[20:32] <kriszyp> most of us don't camel case module names anyway
[20:32] <kriszyp> actually, I think that might be a good niche for a library, trying to be really lightwight, RequireJS seems a little heavier than necessary
[20:39] <jbrantly> kriszyp: my goal with the lib would to be support CommonJS modules "as-is". I'm thinking RequireJS with a different transport, plus allowing for non-wrapped modules (wrap and eval client-side) and a small wrapping tool (perhaps using Rhino). I'm not as concerned with the use of eval and "gear" as RequireJS. I think they all have their place.
[20:39] <kriszyp> cool
[20:40] <kriszyp> in case you are interested, here is my server side wrapping tool (uses CommonJS JSGI, runs on Rhino, Node, etc): http://github.com/kriszyp/transporter
[20:40] <jbrantly> very interested. Not trying to re-invent the wheel.
[20:40] <kriszyp> I have been testing with RequireJS because that is all I had
[20:41] <kriszyp> I'd be interested in testing with your stuff if you create something
[20:41] <jbrantly> I'll let you know if/when I do.
[20:41] <kriszyp> And supporting CommonJS modules "as-is" would be a cool feature
[20:42] <jbrantly> kriszyp: I think so. Even if its just for quick-and-dirty development stuff.
[20:42] <kriszyp> absolutely
[21:06] <kriskowal> kriszyp, if you call for a show of hands on transport/d, i would raise my hand
[21:06] <kriszyp> are you suggesting that I do so?
[21:06] <kriskowal> if there are no outstanding unaddressed technical issues, i think it might be time
[21:07] <kriskowal> if it boils down to a judgement call, yes
[21:07] <kriszyp> and if I do so am I obligated to catch up on reading every email in that thread? :)
[21:07] <kriskowal> well, i'm not gonna :P
[21:07] <kriszyp> ok :)
[21:08] <kriskowal> i think most debate today is about the async proposal, which is orthogonal
[21:08] <kriszyp> ok

 

 

Logs by date :