 | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, William R. Ward writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
> > It's harder than I thought! For people with deeply nested folder structure
> > it is hard to tell what HAS and what has NOT been cleared yet. I found
> > myself logging out to check then logging back in a lot... (this was with
> > James Mathis, Eric I think is all done now)
>
> Try running two browsers - e.g. one Netscape and one IE. Since they
> have separate cookie jars, you shouldn't need to log in and out.
OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
> then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
>
> Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
> working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written
in C. Kids, don't try this at home :)
BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores
expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
KL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
> > then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
> >
> > Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
> > working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> > keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
>
> Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written
> in C. Kids, don't try this at home :)
>
> BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
> browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores
> expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
> in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
> and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
> folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
I'm actually using IE but I'll check out Mozilla...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch wrote:
> BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
> browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores expires
> headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps in the
> moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE and NS
> (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random folder.
> Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired (which i
didn't check), I say mozilla is doing the Right Thing, while IE and NS
don't. A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's
parameters are the same, so browsers are supposed to cache it's output:
from rfc 2068:
In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
HEAD methods should never have the significance of taking an action
other than retrieval. These methods should be considered "safe." This
allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and
DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact
that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
and
Methods may also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
PUT and DELETE share this property.
not saying that this is strictly followed, but this is how it's supposed
to work :)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
>
> unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired
Yes.
A GET CGI is supposed to give the same output when it's
> parameters are the same, so browsers are supposed to cache it's output:
>
> from rfc 2068:
>
> In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and
> HEAD methods should never have the significance of taking an action
> other than retrieval. These methods should be considered "safe." This
> allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and
> DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact
> that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.
Where does it say that a GET request always returns the same content?
a GET for a dynamic page is no different than a GET for a "static" page
that might change at some point. Where the Expires header is set it should
always be obeyed. Now, I am setting "Expires: 0" instead of a properly
formatted date string, so Mozilla may be ignoring it, where IE and NS
know what that means.
> and
>
> Methods may also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside
> from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical
> requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD,
> PUT and DELETE share this property.
>
> not saying that this is strictly followed, but this is how it's supposed
> to work :)
>
> Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Dan Boger writes:
> >
> > unless there's an explicit header saying the cgi has expired
>
> Yes.
wait - am I completely confused here? I thought we wanted the cgi output to
NOT expire? so that "back" will show you the same page?
> Where does it say that a GET request always returns the same content?
> a GET for a dynamic page is no different than a GET for a "static" page
> that might change at some point. Where the Expires header is set it should
> always be obeyed. Now, I am setting "Expires: 0" instead of a properly
> formatted date string, so Mozilla may be ignoring it, where IE and NS
> know what that means.
hmmm... :
13.9 Side Effects of GET and HEAD
Unless the origin server explicitly prohibits the caching of their
responses, the application of GET and HEAD methods to any resources
SHOULD NOT have side effects that would lead to erroneous behavior if
these responses are taken from a cache. They may still have side
effects, but a cache is not required to consider such side effects in
its caching decisions. Caches are always expected to observe an
origin server's explicit restrictions on caching.
We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
"?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URLs as fresh unless
the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs should not
be taken from a cache. See section 9.1.1 for related information.
it does say that "GET" should be ok to be used from the cache, but gives the
exception that if it has a "?" in it, it will not be cached unless the
server specifically ask for caching.
so I guess you're right - in general, GET cgis should not be cached. in
this case, though, we do want it cahced, so you should set an expiration
header in the future - something like "+1d" or something. doesn't a "0"
mean the content has expired Jan 1, 1970?
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > OOOH, good idea. I did not think of that. I guess I better go install NS
> > then, do you have a recommendation for a good and stable and free version?
> >
> > Meanwhile the elves have been steadily improving the interface while I was
> > working (I just cleared about 30 people's folders since I last posted, and I
> > keep seeing little changes) so it's getting easier.
>
> Don't you wish all software development was this efficient? It's even written
> in C. Kids, don't try this at home :)
>
> BTW, you are using Mozilla 1.1a right? Besides being a far superior
> browser to IE or NS it has a fortuitous bug where it ignores
> expires headers when you hit the 'back' button. That really helps
> in the moderator view when you inspect a file and hit 'back'. IE
> and NS (correctoy) load the page again which fetches another random
> folder. Mozilla uses the illegal cache of the page instead.
>
> KL
I use IE, and was quite surprised when that happened to me the first time
(checking a folder and going back, just to find that another random folder
appeared rather than the one I was exploring). Since then, I just open the
questionable file/folder in another window so I can view it. I know, it
could be considered to be an extra step, but I'm used to it.
Us moderators are doing our best to wade through all the files as soon as
possible. It's a good thing I'm on vacation, Kevin picked a really good time
to do this, otherwise I wouldn't be able to help out as much.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (My views do not necessarily express the
views of my employer...)
BRICKFEST 2002 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER... START MAKING PLANS TODAY.
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.geocities.com/legoman34.geo/
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
*****
| | | | | | |
