headers
Adam Di Carlo | 8 Apr 2002 17:48

IMHO release annoucements


If people don't mind, we're changing our release policy a bit so that
duploads of new versions of cl-imho are announced here.  Those are
debian style annoucements although of course non-Debian users can take
advantage of new releases as well.

Let me know if I shouldn't do this...

--

-- 
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam <at> onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Erik Enge | 9 Apr 2002 20:36

IMHO and authorization.

Hóla.

This is what I want to do: if *active-session* does not have a user
object, I'd like to return a login-page and when the user enters
correct username and password, I'd like to return the page the user
initially requested.

Which is quite easy.  I just add this in all my webmethods:

    (if (user *active-session*)
      (session-instance 'whatever-page)
    (session-instance 'login-page))

Now, that would amount in a lot of duplication so it would be nice to
type it once and preferably have all webmethods do this behind my back
so I don't have to think about it.

My first thought then is to patch the define-wm macro, but I'm not
really comfortable messing with internals in that way (although I'm
told this is very much the Lisp way and that my fear is probably
because I've been doing too much Python).

In application.lisp I find authorize and generate-response/authorize
which I don't really understand what is for, but they leave me
thinking that something perhaps is underway that might be relevant to
what I'm trying to achieve.

So, do I patch define-wm or is there another way?

Thanks in advance,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Lyn A Headley | 9 Apr 2002 22:21
Favicon

Re: IMHO and authorization.


>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Enge <erik <at> thingamy.net> writes:

    Erik> Hóla.  This is what I want to do: if *active-session* does
    Erik> not have a user object, I'd like to return a login-page and
    Erik> when the user enters correct username and password, I'd like
    Erik> to return the page the user initially requested.

this is what I do.  I haven't run my stuff in a few months though, so
maybe the most recent imho code has changed.

(defmethod authorize ((element your-base-page-class))
  (cond ((null (user *active-session*))
         (let ((form (page-for-session 'login-page)))
           (setf (target-element form) element)
           form))
        (t
         element)))

then the login just pulls the original page out of its target-element
slot and returns that when verification is done.

-Lyn
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Kurt Noermark | 10 Apr 2002 13:45
Picon
Picon

Announcing LAML version 17.00

With this message I want to announce a new version of LAML - version 17.00.

LAML is a Scheme-based set of libraries for programmatic authoring of
complex WWW material, and for CGI programming. LAML features a set of
document types and tools, such as LENO, the Scheme Elucidator, and
SchemeDoc. Earlier versions of LAML have been announced on this 
mailing list.

In version 17.00 the major news are

 * The creation of HTML4.01 and XHTML1.0 mirrors with *full document
   validation* in relation to the DTDs.  When you generate the HTML
   documents from a LAML source the generated HTML files will be
   validated on the fly. 

 * LAML is now based on an internal format (abstract syntax trees)
   which can rendered as HTML text using a relatively efficient tree traversal
   (avoiding heavy garbage collection due to string concatenation).

Other news in version 17 can be seen in 

  http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark/scheme/distribution/laml/change-logs/news-17.html

The LAML home page is located at

  http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark/laml/

If problems with LAML 17.00 are reported I will reflect on
these on the top of the LAML home page.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Erik Enge | 10 Apr 2002 15:19

Re: IMHO and authorization.

[Lyn A. Headley]

| this is what I do.

Yep, works nicely, thanks! :-)

Erik.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
james anderson | 10 Apr 2002 16:40
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Announcing LAML version 17.00

hello;

i don't know if the is the right forum for this, but i'll go ahead anyway...

i have a couple of remarks about "Programmatic WWW authoring using
Scheme and LAML" (http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark/laml/papers/www2002/p296-normark.html)

1. in section 1, the terms "binding" and "appearance" are misleading.
from the substance of the passage, it would appear that you are
referring, in fact, to the "encoding". that is, "encoding" as in the
markup, not the character encoding.

2. shouldn't section six mention john mallory's group's work?

3. a "functional programming approach" appears on first reading to be
used interchangably with "a programmatic authoring approach." i missed
amore chareful characterisation. it would appear, from section four,
that you intend to distinguish from generating encoding as a side-effect
of a computation and generating encoding as a result of transformations.
if this is true, it should be stated more clearly.

4. the term "XML language" , which appears, for example, in section 4,
is unclear. XML is not a language any more than s-expressions are a
language. xml is an encoding. (beyond the meaning of the DTD, that is.)
neither is XML together with a vocabulary any more a language than
s-expressions together with a set of atoms and syntax rules which govern
their placement. neither becomes a language until one introduces
evaluation functions. which still leaves open the question, why an
s-expression-encoded language is better than an xml-encoded language? is
there really soemthing about the syntactic rules which permits a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Mike Beedle | 23 Apr 2002 22:58

RE: Announcing LAML version 17.00


James Anderson
> 4. the term "XML language" , which appears, for example, in section 4,
> is unclear. XML is not a language any more than s-expressions are a
> language. xml is an encoding. (beyond the meaning of the DTD, that is.)
> neither is XML together with a vocabulary any more a language than
> s-expressions together with a set of atoms and syntax rules which govern
> their placement. neither becomes a language until one introduces
> evaluation functions. which still leaves open the question, why an
> s-expression-encoded language is better than an xml-encoded language? is
> there really soemthing about the syntactic rules which permits a
> different family of valuation functions? 

James:

Isn't XML an acronym for "Extensible Markup Language"?
                                            ^^^^^^^^

But the beauty of Lisp and Scheme is precisely that there is
_no_ difference between the data and code representations.

So, the encoded message or document can be either: code, like
functions, classes, rules, patterns, etc; or data, objects,
data structures (lists, hashmaps, trees, etc.), or facts. 

With XML is much harder to do that,

- Mike
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
MJ Ray | 23 Apr 2002 23:48
Picon
Picon

Re: Announcing LAML version 17.00

Mike Beedle <beedlem <at> e-architects.com> wrote:
> Isn't XML an acronym for "Extensible Markup Language"?

Extensible Markup Syntax just didn't fit the acronym, I guess...
...or are S expressions a language?
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
james anderson | 24 Apr 2002 02:39
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Announcing LAML version 17.00


Mike Beedle wrote:
> 
> James Anderson
> > 4. the term "XML language" , which appears, for example, in section 4,
> > is unclear. XML is not a language any more than s-expressions are a
> > language. xml is an encoding. (beyond the meaning of the DTD, that is.)
> > neither is XML together with a vocabulary any more a language than
> > s-expressions together with a set of atoms and syntax rules which govern
> > their placement. neither becomes a language until one introduces
> > evaluation functions. which still leaves open the question, why an
> > s-expression-encoded language is better than an xml-encoded language? is
> > there really soemthing about the syntactic rules which permits a
> > different family of valuation functions?
> 
> James:
> 
> Isn't XML an acronym for "Extensible Markup Language"?
>                                             ^^^^^^^^

some names are deceptive.
xml is a language only in the sense the the dtd can express constraints
on the structure and content of particular xml formulations. the content
of the document entity is merely an encoding.

> 
> But the beauty of Lisp and Scheme is precisely that there is
> _no_ difference between the data and code representations.

s-expressions are also not a language. they become a language only in
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
EXCH-SVR-SA | 24 Apr 2002 22:45
Picon

ScanMail Message: To Recipient virus found or matched file blocki ng setting.

ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange has taken action on the message, please
refer to the contents of this message for further details.

Sender = gilbert1504 <at> hotmail.com
Recipient(s) = lispweb <at> red-bean.com
Subject = [Lispweb] Please try again
Scanning Time = 04/24/2002 22:45:31
Engine/Pattern = 6.150-1001/269

Action on message:
The attachment href.scr contained WORM_KLEZ.G virus. ScanMail has taken the
Deleted action. 

Warning to recipient. ScanMail has detected a virus.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane