Ian Clarke wrote:

With NGR finally starting to meet expectations, we need to think about what lies between now and our 0.6 release.

The baseline is simply to consolodate currently implemented features with a moritorium on significant new features and a focus on ensuring that current functionality is solid.

Other possible features that could go into 0.6:

* UI work (including installer work and possible revamping of FProxy
  theme)

* Additional NGR work (including the transmission of Estimators with
  node references and in seednodes file)

* More nio stuff

....what else?

Since you asked, I thought I would re-post a problem that persists in the latest release. It would come under the category of UI work, since even though it isn't that serious, it can really affect a newbie user's experience.


From the thread called "6209 problem loading web interface":
Okay, so this time I closed the two tabs that were loading antifaq and web interface, and then immediately tried to load the web interface. It came up in about 2-3 minutes, which isn't good. I'm stopping any more experimentation for now.

Martin Stone Davis wrote:

I have to amend what I said: as soon as I sent you that message, the web interface came up. Then I tried the whole process again, and it came up in 1-2 minutes. That's still a problem in my view, but not nearly as bad. Lemme try with some different pages (other than antifaq) and see what happens.

Martin Stone Davis wrote:

Here's what I put in user.js:

user_pref("network.http.max-connections", 20000);
user_pref("network.http.max-connections-per-server", 10000);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server", 1000);
user_pref("network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy", 5000);

i.e. I multiplied them all by 100, just to be sure.


Then, I restarted Mozilla, and checked about:config. Changes were made. Next, I tried to produce the problem again, and got pretty much the same result. Only difference is that the text of the antifaq loads faster now that it's in my cache. Not sure how long it will be till the web interface loads on the second tab. I'm still waiting after 5 minutes....


-Martin

Brandon Low wrote:

Not sure why this wouldn't have happened on older freenet build, but
freenet uses a LOT of http connections, you will probably need to set
your mozilla network.http.maxconnection (and related variables) to
higher values (I use 512 for max-connections I think) so that mozilla
can handle freenet. If that doesn't solve it, call back

--Brandon

On Sat, 09/27/03 at 12:24:47 -0700, Martin Stone Davis wrote:

I'm getting a problem loading the web interface in 6209 that I don't think was present in 6207:

Steps to create problem
1. Open Mozilla 1.5b on WinXP.  Create two blank tabs.
2. double-click on bunny to load web interface ... it loads and shows TFE and TFHI in 
the first tab
3. click on TFHI ... it loads and shows about half the icons
4. click on antifaq ... it starts trying to load ... screen remains at TFHI and says 
"Loading..."
5. click on the second tab
6. double-click on bunny to load web interface

Now the problem: the web interface doesn't load for a long time. It just sits there saying "Loading...."

The last time I tried this, here is what happened: The antifaq on the first tab loads eventually loaded (after about 8 minutes) the text and continued to try to load its sublinks. Another 4 minutes later, the web interface loaded and continued trying to load its sublinks. 2 minutes later, the web interface stopped trying to load its sublinks. At this point, the antifaq was still trying to load its sublinks.

In previous versions, I only experienced long wait times for loading the web interface when I was trying to load a many (say, 8+) things at once. In this case, I was only trying to load 1 other link.

Note: I have Mozilla set up as recommended in the README file to increase the number of simultaneous connections.

-Martin


_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to