I just wrote a new extension, see here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhatsDown
I'll be happy to get feedback from the list about this extension.
seems to me that it's very useful (although I don't think that it'll replace HP Open View :))
--Yedidia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yedidia Klein wrote:
I just wrote a new extension, see here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhatsDown
I'll be happy to get feedback from the list about this extension.
seems to me that it's very useful (although I don't think that it'll replace HP Open View :))
This extension will murder performance. You cannot do the socket connection at runtime without incurring significant delays in page serving.
On 15/12/06, Edward Z. Yang edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com wrote:
This extension will murder performance. You cannot do the socket connection at runtime without incurring significant delays in page serving.
It's not a problem, since it's not like we'll ever use it on Wikimedia anyway. To be perfectly blunt about it; if other people want to install inefficient custom code on their wikis...well, it's their servers, their requirements, and their problem.
Rob Church
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:31:18 +0000, Rob Church wrote:
On 15/12/06, Edward Z. Yang edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com wrote:
This extension will murder performance. You cannot do the socket connection at runtime without incurring significant delays in page serving.
It's not a problem, since it's not like we'll ever use it on Wikimedia anyway. To be perfectly blunt about it; if other people want to install inefficient custom code on their wikis...well, it's their servers, their requirements, and their problem.
Rob Church
If you need the functionality anyway, doing it on the wiki shouldn't be much worse than using a CGI. So it could be useful on small site, i.e. to document a service and monitor it on the same site.
I'd think it could benefit from some improvements, such as to allow a parameter in LocalSettings to restrict where it can connect to; and have its own cache, so you can view it as often as you want from as many pages, without hitting the same address many times a second. That would be a nice benefit to using the wiki.
-Steve
On 15/12/06, Steve Sanbeg ssanbeg@ask.com wrote:
If you need the functionality anyway, doing it on the wiki shouldn't be much worse than using a CGI. So it could be useful on small site, i.e. to document a service and monitor it on the same site.
I didn't mean to imply that it was totally useless, of course; if you need it, you'll use it.
I'd think it could benefit from some improvements, such as to allow a parameter in LocalSettings to restrict where it can connect to; and have its own cache, so you can view it as often as you want from as many pages, without hitting the same address many times a second. That would be a nice benefit to using the wiki.
Those would be sensible additions.
Rob Church
On 12/15/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/12/06, Edward Z. Yang edwardzyang@thewritingpot.com wrote:
This extension will murder performance. You cannot do the socket connection at runtime without incurring significant delays in page serving.
It's not a problem, since it's not like we'll ever use it on Wikimedia anyway. To be perfectly blunt about it; if other people want to install inefficient custom code on their wikis...well, it's their servers, their requirements, and their problem.
If the code were slightly rearranged, so that it begins all of the connections simultaneously and only then selects on all of them, it'd at least get the runtime down to 2 seconds in the worst case. As it is, it's 2*(number of host-ports).
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org