> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] FProxy insert fails
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:29:20PM -0600, William_dw -- Sqlcoders wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Here's the debug log & an insert screen copy that might be help
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:29:20PM -0600, William_dw -- Sqlcoders wrote:
> Hi,
> Here's the debug log & an insert screen copy that might be helpful...
>
> freenet.jar is 1,413,120 bytes on disk. I just ran the snapshot updated
> successfully twice in a row for another posting, and the filesize is
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:23:39PM -0600, William_dw -- Sqlcoders wrote:
Sqlcoders wrote:
Hi,
Here's the debug log an insert screen copy that might be
helpful...
freenet.jar is 1,413,120 bytes on disk. I just ran the
snapshot updated
successfully twice in a row for
> Sqlcoders wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Here's the debug log & an insert screen copy that might be
> helpful...
> > > >
> > > > freenet.jar is 1,413,120 bytes on disk. I just ran the
> snapshot updated
> > > > successfully twice in a row for another posting, and the
> filesize is the
> > > > same
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-admin at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-admin at freenetproject.org]On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: 21 October 2002 18:13
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] FProxy insert fails
>
>
> On Mon,
Hi,
Here's the debug log & an insert screen copy that might be helpful...
freenet.jar is 1,413,120 bytes on disk. I just ran the snapshot updated
successfully twice in a row for another posting, and the filesize is the
same (to the byte), so I'm assuming my snapshot is as up to date as can be
:)
Hi,
Here's the debug log an insert screen copy that might be helpful...
freenet.jar is 1,413,120 bytes on disk. I just ran the snapshot updated
successfully twice in a row for another posting, and the filesize is the
same (to the byte), so I'm assuming my snapshot is as up to date as can be
:)
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:29:20PM -0600, William_dw -- Sqlcoders wrote:
Hi,
Here's the debug log an insert screen copy that might be helpful...
freenet.jar is 1,413,120 bytes on disk. I just ran the snapshot updated
successfully twice in a row for another posting, and the filesize is the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:devl-admin;freenetproject.org]On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
Sent: 21 October 2002 18:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] FProxy insert fails
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 05:29:20PM -0600, William_dw -- Sqlcoders wrote
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:21:17PM -0600, William_dw -- Sqlcoders wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:devl-admin;freenetproject.org]On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
Sent: 21 October 2002 18:13
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] FProxy insert
At 11.56 16/09/02 +0100, you wrote:
...
>> to the previous; a feature no longer avalaible to user.
>>=20
>> The use of the form accessible throught http://hostname.domain.tld:8890
>> when a user try to connect to the is impossible TTBOMK when
>> tunneled via SSL; the Request button
On Monday 16 September 2002 04:06, you wrote:
> The use of the form accessible throught http://hostname.domain.tld:8890
> when a user try to connect to the is impossible TTBOMK when
> tunneled via SSL; the Request button always send to 127.0.0.1,
> and this is hard-coded in the servlet.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 10:06:09AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> At 13.36 13/09/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >> > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform
> >> > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that
> >> > the RIAA and other organization from the Dark Side
> >> >
In message <5.1.0.14.2.20020916100556.02e01620 at mail.dada.it>, Marco A.
Calamari writes
>At 13.36 13/09/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>> > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform
>>> > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that
>>> > the RIAA and other organization from
At 13.36 13/09/02 -0500, you wrote:
>> > From a normal user point of view, this fact transform
>> > a read/write media in a readonly media; something that
>> > the RIAA and other organization from the Dark Side
>> > can just dream of.
>> >
>> However, you were never able to insert a *site* by
> It is possible to hack this up if your needs are urgent, otherwise wait
> a while; we are going to merge and 8890 so that we don't need the
> absolute link.
Couldn't a link be constructed based on the Host: header?
___
devl mailing list
devl
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 09:45:22AM -0500, Will Glynn wrote:
> > It is possible to hack this up if your needs are urgent, otherwise wait
> > a while; we are going to merge and 8890 so that we don't need the
> > absolute link.
>
> Couldn't a link be constructed based on the Host: header?
That
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Travis Bemann wrote:
> > However, you were never able to insert a *site* by fproxy. This would be
> > a useful feature, no? :)
>
> The thing is that fproxy could NEVER actually insert whole sites into
> Freenet, and because site insertion is necessary to actually
>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 10:20:49AM +1000, fish wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> > Not at all, it just means that they can't insert with FProxy, I honestly
> > doubt many people were actually using FProxy for inserting stuff (more
> > likely they will use fcptools, freeweb,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:42:37PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> > None follow Ian's call for opinion about the
> > fproxy insertion capability removal.
> >
> > My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea.
> >
> > I
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Not at all, it just means that they can't insert with FProxy, I honestly
> doubt many people were actually using FProxy for inserting stuff (more
> likely they will use fcptools, freeweb, or frost).
You'd be surprised, actully, at how many people were
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> None follow Ian's call for opinion about the
> fproxy insertion capability removal.
>
> My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea.
>
> I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
>
> From a normal user point of
On Thursday 12 September 2002 08:42, you wrote:
> However, you were never able to insert a *site* by fproxy. This would be
> a useful feature, no? :)
This is exactly the kind of feature that doesn't belong in a bloated
monolithic fproxy, but which could easily be implemented as a separate
None follow Ian's call for opinion about the
fproxy insertion capability removal.
My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea.
I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
From a normal user point of view, this fact transform
a read/write media in a readonly media; something that
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
It was a usability reason, FProxy should be a tool for retrieval of
information from Freenet, there are much better tools for inserting
information into Freenet.
> From a
None follow Ian's call for opinion about the
fproxy insertion capability removal.
My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea.
I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
From a normal user point of view, this fact transform
a read/write media in a readonly media; something that
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
None follow Ian's call for opinion about the
fproxy insertion capability removal.
My opinion about it is that was a bad(TM) idea.
I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
From a normal user point of view,
On Thursday 12 September 2002 08:42, you wrote:
However, you were never able to insert a *site* by fproxy. This would be
a useful feature, no? :)
This is exactly the kind of feature that doesn't belong in a bloated
monolithic fproxy, but which could easily be implemented as a separate
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
I cannot imagine a good technical reason for that.
It was a usability reason, FProxy should be a tool for retrieval of
information from Freenet, there are much better tools for inserting
information into Freenet.
From a
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ian Clarke wrote:
Not at all, it just means that they can't insert with FProxy, I honestly
doubt many people were actually using FProxy for inserting stuff (more
likely they will use fcptools, freeweb, or frost).
You'd be surprised, actully, at how many people were
Can I see the NPE?
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:11:32PM -0400, David Allen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Attached is a tiny patch to fix the exceptions in fproxy that haven't
> let anybody insert using fproxy for a while now. Basically it was
> just caused by creating new DocumentCommand objects with null
Yeah, just change the lines that say new DocumentCommand(new
Metadata(new MetadataSettings())); to new
DocumentCommand((Metadata)null); (which is how it originally was) and
then go into fproxy and try to insert a file. You will immediately
get "Insert failed: error preparing metadata" (...)
On
Hello,
Attached is a tiny patch to fix the exceptions in fproxy that haven't
let anybody insert using fproxy for a while now. Basically it was
just caused by creating new DocumentCommand objects with null Metadata
object arguments. DocumentCommand always references that argument's
methods, so a
Yeah, just change the lines that say new DocumentCommand(new
Metadata(new MetadataSettings())); to new
DocumentCommand((Metadata)null); (which is how it originally was) and
then go into fproxy and try to insert a file. You will immediately
get Insert failed: error preparing metadata (...)
On
Hello,
Attached is a tiny patch to fix the exceptions in fproxy that haven't
let anybody insert using fproxy for a while now. Basically it was
just caused by creating new DocumentCommand objects with null Metadata
object arguments. DocumentCommand always references that argument's
methods, so
35 matches
Mail list logo
