Re: Inrupt Pod Server

Hi Jeff and Alain,

Sorry again for the hassle. I just got off a call with Jackson, and we
tried to think of a way to improve your situation and that of other app
developers. Jackson volunteered to wipe his schedule today so that he can
review and merge Alain's PR, and he will continue spending time on NSS
maintenance, so that you can keep working productively with NSS for the
coming months.

In the meantime, Kjetil is working on the Solid test suite, and that will
also help to make sure that NSS behaves exactly like the spec prescribes.

We’ll also take a bit longer to open IPS up for external testing, which
will give us more time for hardening internally to make the eventual
transition as seamless as possible for app developers. In the meantime
Jackson will keep supporting NSS for the foreseeable future and fixing any
bugs that you find in there, so that you don’t have to worry about that.
Hope that helps!


Cheers,
Michiel.

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:01 PM Jeff Zucker <dubzed@gmail.com> wrote:

> As an alternate solution to the one Alain proposes (maintaining NSS 5.x),
> I wonder if it would not be better to revert to NSS 4.x.  AFAIK know, the
> only feature that would omit is app-level access control which does not
> impact many kinds of app development and experimentation.  At least that
> way we can count on PUT, POST, GET to work pretty much like they would in
> IPS.  But I agree with Alain that app testing against a server in which the
> basic REST API is broken is not feasible and some solution needs to be
> found.
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:40 AM Alain Bourgeois <
> alain.bourgeois10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am not comfortable with the actual situation where IPS takes more time
>> (so is life) but that there is no NSS reference (the actual v5.1.7 is buggy)
>> I would like that Inrupt and the community allow to commit the very few
>> remaining pull at least to dev.inrupt.net
>> Then we can infer or not having a NSS reference.
>> I don't think it diverts any needed resource from IPS. Mashlib is already
>> upgrading dev.inrupt.net
>>
>> Le mer. 25 sept. 2019 à 18:41, Jeff Zucker <dubzed@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi Michiel,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clear responses on IPS behavior, I have a few comments
>>> below.  More generally though, I think there *really* needs to be a single
>>> source of reliable timing and availability information about the server
>>> implementation.  Is there a test of IPS running on ips.inrupt.net?
>>> When might that go to dev.inrupt.net and inrupt.net?  Having developers
>>> guess about those questions by reading random comments in the chat is
>>> really unworkable.  Could there be a section every week in  "What's New in
>>> Solid" that tells us which implementation is running on the various servers
>>> and a *guess* about the timing of updates?  Even if the guesses needed to
>>> be updated weekly, it would give us an idea.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 4:27 AM Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [regarding GET on a container]
>>>
>>>> * if html is preferred over turtle, and index.html exists, it will be
>>>> served
>>>> * otherwise, if index.ttl exists, it will be served
>>>> * otherwise, the folder listing will be served
>>>>
>>>> In other words, if index.ttl exists, there is no way for anyone but a
>>> server admin to discover the contents of the folder?
>>>
>>>   Jaxon made some changes to solid-cli with the switch from 4.x to 5.x.
>>> Will those types of changes be needed with IPS and if so is that something
>>> I should look into or will y'all handle that?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would be good to test that together! I'll also have a go at that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great, let me know anytime you can use my help on that.
>>>
>>> -- Jeff Zucker
>>>
>>>