Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-03-02 Thread Florian Balmer
It's not at all that I think I'm the expert you've summoned in your last post on this thread. As you've been running your own high-traffic "althttpd" server for many years, maybe you should explain the Internet to us. I was doing some (limited) research about RFCs, recommendations from the Apache

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-25 Thread Richard Hipp
On 2/25/18, Florian Balmer wrote: > As far as I remember, I've come across the recommendation to combine > ETags and Last-Modified headers, so the client could pick > If-None-Match or If-Modified-Since to validate its cached content. > > And, it's already there, and

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-25 Thread Florian Balmer
D. Richard Hipp: > Consider this sequence of operations: > > (1) User A does a "uv push" > (2) User B does a "wget -N" against the uv. > (3) User C does a "uv push" of different content. > > If all of (1), (2), and (3) happen during the same second and if > unversioned content honors the

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-25 Thread Richard Hipp
On 2/23/18, Florian Balmer wrote: > > 2. There's no "Last-modified" HTTP header when downloading unversioned > files through the /uv web page, causing undesired network traffic for > `wget -N' scripting scenarios, Consider this sequence of operations: (1) User A does a

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-25 Thread Ron W
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 4:11 AM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:11:04 +0100 > From: Florian Balmer <florian.bal...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5 > > I think that the "Last

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-25 Thread Florian Balmer
Ron: > Someone already made an ETag wrapper for wget: > https://www.w3.org/2001/12/rubyrdf/pack/tests/scutter/wget.pl Thanks for the interesting link. > There is no requirement or specification for the value of an ETag, > could use the Fossil artifact hash as the ETag value. Then a script >

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-24 Thread Florian Balmer
Thinking about HTTP caching twice, the following comes to my mind: A command line download tool, that unlike a web browser does not keep a cache of content and associated ETags, won't be able to calculate the ETag for a file it is going to request from a Fossil web server. ETags are not simple

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-24 Thread Florian Balmer
> Is the new ETag mechanism sufficient for your purposes? That's a great addition, thanks! However, my simple scripting tools don't support ETags, i.e. the `wget -N' example (latest version 1.19.4) mentioned earlier still carries out two full downloads of the Fossil source code archive. With

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-23 Thread Richard Hipp
On 2/23/18, Florian Balmer wrote: > > 2. There's no "Last-modified" HTTP header when downloading unversioned > files through the /uv web page, causing undesired network traffic for > `wget -N' scripting scenarios, for example, and maybe also with web > spiders (if they

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-23 Thread Florian Balmer
> That's because autofocus causes CSS flashes on some web-browsers. > If you can suggest a reasonable workaround, that would be great. Oh, I'm sorry I've missed that. The only other way I know is by JavaScript, something like: window.onload = function() { document.getElementById("u").focus();

Re: [fossil-users] Minor Issues with Fossil 2.5

2018-02-23 Thread Richard Hipp
On 2/23/18, Florian Balmer wrote: > 1. On the Login/Logout web page, the User ID input field used to have > the keyboard "autofocus". That's because autofocus causes CSS flashes on some web-browsers. It was removed with check-in