Saturday November 02, 2002

Nanning Deployment Descriptors
Okay, Nanning has been getting a lot of my thought-train lately. While I haven't had time to actually investigate it yet, AOP is resonating with me. It seems some of my ramblings aren't as completely hair-brained as I may have thought. Jon Tirsen's thoughts were running on parallel tracks as he has come up with a good rational for using Jelly as a deployment descriptor language.
Now I just have to find the time to install Eclipse, AspectJ, and Nanning, so I can start playing around. Since I'm the kind of guy that has to have a "project" to play on, I'll probably start on my "aspected servlets" concept. ( Nov 02 2002, 08:00:31 AM ) Technology Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/nanning_deployment_descriptors_br

Friday November 01, 2002

More Nanning (AOP)
Real short. It's been buzzing in my brain all day that it might be interesting to build a servlet framework (being as general as possible) using AOP techniques. Then use AOP to "slap" different bits of functionality into a servlet. Kinda like Filters, I think, but not. I'm rambling as I haven't enough AOP knowledge to form solid ideas here. I'm tossing things out to see if they make sense to anyone else. ( Nov 01 2002, 08:12:29 PM ) Technology Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/more_nanning_aop_br

Thursday October 31, 2002

Nanning + Jelly = ? Okay, I'm just talking out my butt because I've used neither Nanning nor Jelly. But I'm just wondering if Jelly might ease Jon Tirsen's deployment descriptor fear. ( Oct 31 2002, 10:20:04 PM ) Technology Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/nanning_jelly

Tuesday October 29, 2002

Knocking 'em down! I've closed three Roller bugs in JIRA tonight! Whoo Hoo. ( Oct 29 2002, 10:18:56 PM ) Roller Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/knocking_em_down

Roller 0.9.6 Interface
I keep forgetting to send Matt a big fat Thank You for the improvements to Roller's interface, which looks much cleaner and more professional. So here it is: Thanks Matt! ( Oct 29 2002, 08:12:29 PM ) Roller Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/roller_0_9_6_interface

Referrer "blocking" issue: I noticed that Dave posted comments about some code I recently committed:

Roller 0.9.6's referer tracker already ignored hits from pages in the same weblog, now Lance has added an ignoreHosts option so that a Roller admin can configure Roller to ignore hits from different hosts.

Just so it's clear, the code that was already in 0.9.6 was not serving this function for me.  It ignored calls from http://127.0.01 but not from the same domain name, http://brainopolis.dnsalias.com, as I am using here.  I think the rest of Dave's suggestions are good ones, and I'll look at adding them as well.  Matt Raible also made good suggestions.  Since my implementation was "deployer dependant" (that is, the deployer set the values) and not user dependant (set by the individual user) I think these suggestions will all make good additions to the functionality. ( Oct 29 2002, 08:12:29 PM ) Roller Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/referrer_blocking_issue

Monday October 28, 2002

More Referrer Blocking
Mark Pilgrim has faced this down already, and his solution reminds me of PingBack or BackTrack, or whatever the hell:

Since day 1, my 'further reading' script has implemented strict referrer verification, checking that referrers are reachable and actually contain a link to the post my access logs claim they link to. This was mostly done to weed out links from webmail pages, intranets, and browser-based desktop news aggregators.[Mark Pilgrim]

I had considered adding this as part of a TrackBack system, but really dread the overhead involved.... ( Oct 28 2002, 10:18:33 PM ) Technology Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/more_referrer_blocking_br

Civil Disobedience, can you stomach it?
Right on Bob!

Everyone who hates the DMCA has to illegally copy a movie or a song, and then tell both the Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office exactly what they did. We need 10 million or so confessed and unrepentant intellectual property pirates. That's too much illegal behavior to ignore (What could 10 million pirated copies of "Debbie Does Dallas" be worth?), but too many individual criminals to be prosecuted. Then, having pirated our movie or song, we also need to turn ourselves in to the authorities, clogging every hoosegow in America, facing our potential $10,000 fine, each of us demanding the jury trial we are guaranteed under the Constitution.[I, Cringely]

Well, I've done part of the job (downloaded and shared files). Not quite sure I'm ready to own up to it to the Feds and march on the courthouse demanding my trial. But still, I love the concept of civil disobedience. It's our country, dammit, and we've got to make "them" listen to us one way or another. ( Oct 28 2002, 08:12:29 PM ) News Permalink
Trackback: http://www.brainopolis.com/roller/trackback/lance/Weblog/civil_disobedience_can_you_stomach