[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

[ANN] Mongrel Web Server 0.3.12.2 -- Iron Mongrel (Parser Fix

Zed A. Shaw

4/4/2006 5:11:00 PM

Hello Everyone,

This is an ultra quick announce for a bug fix release to Mongrel. It
corrects a small change in the HTTP parser that causes an error when people
use multi-part forms in a certain way. The fix is literally 4 characters
changed in the parser specification.

Everyone should update to this release and let me know if their forms act
really weird. I've tested various upload types but some folks seem to be
doing original upload encodings. This parser should catch them
consistently.

You can upgrade using:

gem upgrade

Or using:

gem install mongrel

I just posted the gems so it might take a bit to get the fix.


Zed A. Shaw
http://www.ze...
http://mongrel.ruby...
8 Answers

james_b

4/4/2006 5:39:00 PM

0

Zed Shaw wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> This is an ultra quick announce for a bug fix release to Mongrel. It
> corrects a small change in the HTTP parser that causes an error when people
> use multi-part forms in a certain way. The fix is literally 4 characters
> changed in the parser specification.
>
> Everyone should update to this release and let me know if their forms act
> really weird. I've tested various upload types but some folks seem to be
> doing original upload encodings. This parser should catch them
> consistently.
>
> You can upgrade using:
>
> gem upgrade

Won't that upgrade ALL of the installed gems?


--
James Britt

“Design depends largely on constraints.”
— Charles Eames

Jim Weirich

4/4/2006 5:45:00 PM

0

James Britt wrote:
> Zed Shaw wrote:
>> consistently.
>>
>> You can upgrade using:
>>
>> gem upgrade
>
> Won't that upgrade ALL of the installed gems?

No, it wont.


Actually, it won't do anything.

I'm sure it meant the 'update' command. Something like:

gem update mongrel

--
-- Jim Weirich

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

james_b

4/4/2006 6:35:00 PM

0

Jim Weirich wrote:
> James Britt wrote:
>
>>Zed Shaw wrote:
>>
>>>consistently.
>>>
>>>You can upgrade using:
>>>
>>> gem upgrade
>>
>>Won't that upgrade ALL of the installed gems?
>
>
> No, it wont.
>
>
> Actually, it won't do anything.
>
> I'm sure it meant the 'update' command. Something like:
>
> gem update mongrel
>

Ah. But 'update' all by itself still updates *all* gems, without
warning or prompting for confirmation.

(At least I think so; I just ran it, then ctrl-C'ed it, when it appeared
as if it was about to fetch updates for everything, which would make me
sad.)



--
James Britt

http://www.rub... - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jame... - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30seco... - Building Better Tools

Jim Weirich

4/4/2006 6:50:00 PM

0

James Britt wrote:
> Jim Weirich wrote:
>>>Won't that upgrade ALL of the installed gems?
>>
> Ah. But 'update' all by itself still updates *all* gems, without
> warning or prompting for confirmation.

Yes, it will. I meant to say that too, but forgot.

--
-- Jim Weirich

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Jim Weirich

4/4/2006 8:04:00 PM

0

Jonathan Weiss wrote:
>>
>> I just posted the gems so it might take a bit to get the fix.
>
> I do not know, if this is related to the deployment of the gems.
>
> # gem install mongrel
> Attempting local installation of 'mongrel'
[...]
> Install required dependency daemons? [Yn]
> ERROR: While executing gem ... (ArgumentError)
> parse error on line 0, col 31: `!ruby/object:Gem::Specification '

Hmmm ... my guess is that you are running Ruby 1.8.2 and the daemons gem
was generated on a Ruby 1.8.3 system. 1.8.3 omitted the "---" prefix on
yaml output which makes it incompatible with 1.8.2 systems. The Yaml in
Ruby 1.8.4 generates the '---' (to be compatible with 1.8.2) and will
accept yaml without the '---' (to be compatible with 1.8.3).

Confused yet?

Your course of action is to

(1) upgrade to Ruby 1.8.4
(2) talk the daemons author (or some other kind soul) to provide an
update

There is also a (3) option, which is try out the beta version of the
gems command (which patches 1.8.3 gems on the fly), but we just started
testing that and I'm not recommending it for general consumption yet.

--
-- Jim Weirich

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Jonathan Weiss

4/4/2006 9:07:00 PM

0

Jim Weirich wrote:
> Jonathan Weiss wrote:
>>> I just posted the gems so it might take a bit to get the fix.
>> I do not know, if this is related to the deployment of the gems.
>>
>> # gem install mongrel
>> Attempting local installation of 'mongrel'
> [...]
>> Install required dependency daemons? [Yn]
>> ERROR: While executing gem ... (ArgumentError)
>> parse error on line 0, col 31: `!ruby/object:Gem::Specification '
>
> Hmmm ... my guess is that you are running Ruby 1.8.2 and the daemons gem
> was generated on a Ruby 1.8.3 system.

You're right, I'm on 1.8.2 (on OS X) but I never had any problems with
daemons or older version of Mongrel with it.

I will update Ruby.

Thanks,
Jonathan

--
Jonathan Weiss
http://blog.in...

Jim Weirich

4/4/2006 9:17:00 PM

0

Jonathan Weiss wrote:
> Jim Weirich wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm ... my guess is that you are running Ruby 1.8.2 and the daemons gem
>> was generated on a Ruby 1.8.3 system.
>
> You're right, I'm on 1.8.2 (on OS X) but I never had any problems with
> daemons or older version of Mongrel with it.
>
> I will update Ruby.

Looks like daemons was just updated today. (Actually, my gemwatcher
tells me that almost 20 gems were updated just today. Wow, busy day!)

--
-- Jim Weirich

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Zed A. Shaw

4/5/2006 6:33:00 AM

0

Thanks folks, I was rushing to get that fix out since the parser was broken
for people doing file uploads.


Zed A. Shaw
http://www.ze...
http://mongrel.ruby...



On 4/4/06 2:50 PM, "Jim Weirich" <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:

> James Britt wrote:
>> Jim Weirich wrote:
>>>> Won't that upgrade ALL of the installed gems?
>>>
>> Ah. But 'update' all by itself still updates *all* gems, without
>> warning or prompting for confirmation.
>
> Yes, it will. I meant to say that too, but forgot.
>
> --
> -- Jim Weirich