[0:01]<jbrantly> I wonder if concurrency is an issue here (running multiple tests at the same time) [0:02]<jbrantly> or if it's acceptable to say that tests should be run serially [0:06]<konobi> rightio... got native commonjs modules working on smart platform [0:11]<tlrobinson> where's the definitive list of commonjs module implementations? there's a *lot* now [0:11]<konobi> on the wiki? [0:12]<tlrobinson> this? http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS#Implementations [0:14]<tlrobinson> i don't know if i should bother listing this super simple (probably not compliant) bundler i made http://github.com/tlrobinson/minibundler [0:16]<jbrantly> tlrobinson: not sure if you saw my message, but I mentioned that Yabble will very soon have that functionality. Also, I took a look at your code and I think it would currently fail some unit tests. On the other hand, as you said, it is super-simple. [0:16]<tlrobinson> jbrantly: yeah i just wanted the simplest thing that worked [0:16]<tlrobinson> i don't plan on expanding it [2:10]* jhuni is thinking about how to handle free variable exportation - http://gist.github.com/377393 [2:18]<jbrantly> jhuni: yea, not a fan. Transport/C and /D has similar stuff. [2:19]<jbrantly> jhuni: plus it looks like you're getting into what I like to call configuration hell. You don't happen to come from a Java background, do you? [2:20]<jhuni> jbrantly: perl background [2:21]<jhuni> jbrantly: I didn't realize that Transport/D supported exports? [2:22]<jhuni> nvm I think it handles exports with {"injects":[]} [2:22]<jbrantly> jhuni: right, although it doesn't specify what the values really resolve to [2:23]<jhuni> jbrantly: if a good way to handle free variables could be developed then I don't think it would be hellish [2:24]<jbrantly> but why? I think require + package management is good enough [2:25]<jhuni> jbrantly: some users want it I guess [2:25]<jhuni> jbrantly: it'd probably function as like a non-standard plugin if anything [2:26]<jhuni> BTW do you mind if I use your "determineShallowDependencies" function here ? http://github.com/jhuni/Module-Metadata/blob/master/lib/META/HandleUtils/parseCJS.js [2:27]<jbrantly> jhuni: no, but keep in mind (like the comment says) it currently has a bug with comments [2:29]<jhuni> jbrantly: good point, but its good to have something that works for now [2:29]<jhuni> jbrantly: currently the only way I can handle the metadata from a file is with a bundler to bundle it into something stand-a-lone but I want to build some ways to use the transport formats as well [2:30]<jhuni> jbrantly: It can bundle commonjs modules with that parseCJS script [2:31]<jhuni> the point is these handlers would work for Modules/1.1.1 and for manually specified metadata scripts [2:35]<jbrantly> jhuni: my point is any module that uses these free variables is no longer Modules/1.1.1 [2:36]<jhuni> jbrantly: which free variables, the ones from is_export? [2:37]<jbrantly> jhuni: yea. Not saying that Modules/1.2 might not support something like that though. But it's not a direction I want to go. [2:37]<jhuni> jbrantly: is_export may as well be a non-standard plugin for users that want it (for now) [2:38]<jhuni> its easy to add your own keys to the metadata and handle them however you like [12:18]<kuya_> ashb: i need a sleep function... would i need to write a whole c module? [12:19]<ashb> to what end? [12:19]<ashb> (i mean how/why do you want to sleep?) [12:20]<kuya_> i quess i could just use cron actually [12:20]<ashb> there is zest.reactor.setTimeout [12:20]<ashb> and setInterval [12:21]<kuya_> ah i hadnt thought to put it in the http server [12:21]<kuya_> that works tho! thanks [12:25]<ashb> kuya_: looked at the asnyc ideas? [12:26]<kuya_> yes i trawled thru a load this morning [12:27]<kuya_> unfortunatly my browser crashed since then... so ill have to dig up stuff again :| [12:27]<ashb> :S [12:39]<kuya_> this was the sanest thing i found http://github.com/zimbatm/nodejs-http-websocket [12:43]<kuya_> i need to do some more looking tho [12:44]<ashb> k [12:47]<kuya_> i didnt find anything related to jsgi :( [12:48]<ashb> did you check the narwhal mailing list? [12:49]<kuya_> that is a good search... :] [17:57]<kuya_> ashb: have you looked at this? http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/JSGI/ForEachStreaming [17:58]<ashb> dont think i have, no [17:58]<kuya_> altho i know you said you didnt like promises yesterday... [18:00]<ashb> dont mind it so much. but that proposal seems to add 2 other unrelated things [18:00]<ashb> specifically 'charset' and 'url' properties [18:01]<ashb> also slightly misleading - i guess request.body would have a read callback, not a write [18:02]<ashb> oh no - it seems you just get arbitrarty chunks of data [18:03]<kuya_> yea [18:03]<ashb> i wonder why body.forEach on the body is still a funciton, and not a promise directly... [18:03]<kuya_> shame kris isnt here... [18:03]<kuya_> :) [18:04]<ashb> its not like it would be meaningful without handling promises (you'd just end up with [Object object] or similar as the body) [18:04]<ashb> or infact with nothing [18:04]<ashb> since you don't call the write function [18:04]<ashb> oh cos there's no way to pass things to promises i guess [18:05]<ashb> so you need a closure to get the write callback [18:06]<ashb> oh maybe you can with the promise.put [18:10]<kuya_> it is a little confusing [18:10]<ashb> yeah :D [18:11]<kuya_> http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs/browse_thread/thread/e1b5c60b9ec98c80/041018c1c0024f47 [18:11]<ashb> i think issacs had an AJSGI (or was it EJSGI) proposal too [18:11]<kuya_> (the top post) [18:11]<kuya_> ejsgi is also mentioned alot in that thread :) [18:12]<ashb> but yeah - basically I'm putting the research effort on your shoulders [18:12]<ashb> what ever you decide you like the most i will try to implement :D [18:12]<kuya_> :] [18:13]<kuya_> i dont know if this needs to be jsgi really [18:14]<ashb> if you decide you like node's http api i could do that too [18:14]<kuya_> you just want to be able to take a request and upgrade it to something that has data() and close() methods [22:15]<tlrobinson> deanlandolt: do you recall if there were a lot of people who wanted to replace "pathInfo" with "path", "queryString" with "query", etc? [22:15]<tlrobinson> deanlandolt: also what's your opinion? [22:16]<tlrobinson> after letting it sit for a few months i'm not sure of my opinion any more. intially i wanted it to be derived from the *GI names, but its so different now i'm not sure i care [22:17]<ashb> ^^ that [22:18]<ashb> whact about scriptName? [22:19]<tlrobinson> i don't know [22:19]<tlrobinson> but if i was the only one clutching to the *GI derived names I'm willing to re-evaluate [22:19]<ashb> tbh it doesn't really matter unless you are doing raw JSGI [22:20]<ashb> which in a lot of cases i don't think many will be [22:20]<ashb> (but of course it shouldn't be painful for anyone if they want to) [22:20]<tlrobinson> ashb: personally i like writing JSGI apps + middleware + helpers [22:20]<tlrobinson> so making it nicer is a good thing [22:20]<ashb> sure, but do you use a route middelware? [22:21]<ashb> or write it manually each time [22:21]<tlrobinson> ashb: yeah i use Jack's URLMap... but that just multiplexes to other JSGI apps [22:22]<tlrobinson> its JSGI all the way down [22:22]<ashb> sure :) but you don't deal with .path(Info) very often directly do you? [22:23]<ashb> but personally I don't care what the name is so long its there [22:23]<tlrobinson> maybe not that one in particular [22:23]<tlrobinson> but there's also requestMethod, which could be method, etc [22:23]<tlrobinson> i don't care much either [22:23]<ashb> yeah. [22:24]<ashb> my general incliation is for shorter/one-word names where possible [23:00]* Dantman likes .queryString over .query since when you think of a general .query you usually expect something like an object