Comments for self.collect(&:code)

Comment on Scoped mixins by Sander

Sander — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:37:24 +0000

I was talking about the PHP naming convention, which I purposefully mimiced. An inside joke with a friend, I thought it would be obvious. It definitely wasn’t intended to be taken seriously.

Comment on Scoped mixins by anon

anon — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:31:00 +0000

I don’t see anything that looks like PHP that doesn’t look like any other language. Try harder next time :-/

Comment on Apache rewrite rules are almost as horrid as XSLT by Sander

Sander — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:16:24 +0000

Thanks, that does make a lot of sense I guess I missed REQUEST_URI when I skimmed through the docs.

Comment on Apache rewrite rules are almost as horrid as XSLT by feniix

feniix — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:19:24 +0000

you don’t need to do grouping, use grouping when you need to mangle the uri like exchanging parameters position or creating SEO friendly urls.
In in your case is just a waste of cpu and memory I recommend:
“The Definitive Guide to Apache mod_rewrite”

RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.got-djent.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule .* http://got-djent.com%{REQUEST_URI} [R=301,L]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.benanne.net$ [NC]
RewriteRule .* http://benanne.net%{REQUEST_URI} [R=301,L]

Comment on Apache rewrite rules are almost as horrid as XSLT by ziggy

ziggy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:28:23 +0000

In httpd.conf you have to put this in the VirtualHost, Directory section.

Your understanding of the . wildcards is exactly correct. I see several versions of this code but no idea which one is a millisecond faster.

One reason to do this is so that all your links in end up at the same place, otherwise your googlejuice is spilled over duplicate pages, which isn’t good.

Comment on Fixing lousy introspection support in Python DB APIs (partially) by Sander

Sander — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:53:28 +0000

The fix in question is very similar to the one for is_null that is detailed here: an information schema query is used to “correct” the data. Note that my choice of words may have been a bit inappropriate; the API doesn’t really define how the returned data should be interpreted, so one can’t really argue that it is “wrong” in this case. It is, however, unintuitive and not very useful

The query in question is:

SELECT character_maximum_length FROM INFORMATION_SCHEMA.COLUMNS
WHERE table_schema = 'db_name' AND table_name = 'tbl_name' AND column_name = 'col_name'

This should return the value that any reasonable person would expect for internal_size on a VARCHAR field.

In the project I described, I wrote a wrapper function that calls cursor.description and then applies a number of fixes by running queries on INFORMATION_SCHEMA if necessary (for both MySQL and PostgreSQL). It then returns the “corrected” tuple.

I don’t know if this is the best way to retrieve this kind of information, but it works, at least I hope this helps. If it doesn’t, don’t hesitate to tell me and I’ll see what I can do.

Comment on Fixing lousy introspection support in Python DB APIs (partially) by Brian Morton

Brian Morton — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:59:13 +0000

You mention that a fix for MySQL’s erroneous internal_size has been written. Would you mind sharing the details of that information? I am tracking down some details to fix a Django bug that affects introspection and I think that information might be useful. I’m assuming it is a patch to MySQLdb, but is it in a release version, or only in trunk?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Comment on Apache rewrite rules are almost as horrid as XSLT by Max

Max — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:00:51 +0000

Alright in that case I agree with you. Everyone “knows” that whatever you type is on the www, unless you’re on corporate intranet or something. And it only breaks caching if you don’t redirect from one to the other. Really the strongest argument is that it’s…vestigial. There’s no reason you *need* to have it. It’s definitely a growing trend to not have it.

Comment on Apache rewrite rules are almost as horrid as XSLT by Sander

Sander — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:26:56 +0000

The “less typing” argument was in jest Well, kind of, anyway. It certainly isn’t a good enough reason to loudly campaign for the abolishment of “www”. The main reason I prefer without is because, well, it doesn’t do anything useful, and because of the caching situation.

The ctrl+enter thing is a nice trick which I often use myself (and also its friends shift+enter and ctrl+shift+enter), but that is guaranteed to work by putting a redirect in place. Class B compliance is the best of both worlds, really.

Comment on Apache rewrite rules are almost as horrid as XSLT by Max

Max — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:18:21 +0000

I’m not totally sure I believe in the “no www” movement. It certainly doesn’t save you typing!

For instance, if twitter didn’t also accept http://www.twitter.com, I would have to type t-w-i-t-t-e-r-dot-c-o-m-enter. But because they DO allow www, all I have to type is t-w-i-t-t-e-r-ctrl-enter. That’s like 3 characters difference! And yes, it works in all browsers.