[Bese-devel] Re: dom-id's in xxx-select-field elements

[Lou Vanek]

Marco Baringer wrote:

> Lou Vanek <vanek at acd.net> writes:
> 
>>The external interface seems to be in flux (the examples
>>don't even compile any more due to interface changes). So
>>changing things around to be more consistent seems more than
>>workable.
> 
> 
> can you paste the error? they seem to work on my copy of ucw_dev :(

This is part of examples.lisp:

              :dispatchers (list (make-instance 'action-dispatcher)
                                 (simple-dispatcher "mul.ucw"
                                   (mul-table-example))
                                 (make-instance 'ucw::minimal-dispatcher
                                                :url-string "mul-direct.ucw"
                                                :handler (lambda (application context)
                                                           (declare (ignore application context))
                                                           (direct-mul-table-example))))))

I believe standard-application's 'dispatchers accessor was taken out.
And I don't think the new accessor is exported even though it's an
external api (or should be).

I'm still having trouble with examples.lisp; looking into the
possible causes. Let you know.

There's a number of changes to the 'hello' example which I've documented
and will send along with the patches. My system must be unusual, or I've
inadvertantly bumped something, because there was no way the hello example
was going to run the first time with Clisp and Araneida.

I see you've made use of 'make-load-form'. This use doesn't seem
to work with Clisp when the code walker destructively makes
changes (for example, after LOOPs are expanded and GO <tag> is
replaced by a place. The place is being saved to the .fas as a
#:make-load-form-XXXX symbol. I don't understand the code or CL well
enough to fix this, but I can get around the problem by never loading
the .fas but instead load hello.lisp without compilation. Dorky,
but it works.


>>I would go ahead and make the changes, create a few patches,
>>and submit 'em. What's the worst that can happen? You get
>>a code base that's more to your liking (it's partially YOUR
>>code), and Marco may decide not to merge your changes. But that
>>doesn't change the fact that you have changed ucw more to your
>>liking. Your changes remain intact every time you run darcs
>>(unless of course the SELECT code is changed in the future, but
>>then you can simply refuse that patch).
> 
> 
> truer words have never been spoken.
> 
> 
>>I've been working on several patches myself. I'll probably be
>>submitting them in the next day or two. I'm trying to get ucw
>>to play nice with clisp and araneida. Marco's code walker has
>>my head hurting, but the worst is over.
> 
> 
> if you have clisp+araneida patches i'd be really interested in them.

Every time I fix something something new deserves attention. "Whack a Mole"
has crossed my mind.
I'll send patches as soon as I can get a minimally usable system
running. I'm relatively new to CL so this is taking longer than
anticipated. Patience is a virtual (and I'm talking to myself
when I say this).

Lou Vanek
--
Who puts the 'b' back in subtle.