Given the upcoming changes in Chrome 72, namely the removal of FTP rendering, it may be
time to get support for an updated File structure in place for the web interface directly.
https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6199005675520000
Sure. Wouldn't be hard to do either. echicken may already have this in one or more of his web UIs for Synchronet (?).
Re: HTTP Access to Files
By: Digital Man to Tracker1 on Tue Dec 18 2018 14:46:16
Sure. Wouldn't be hard to do either. echicken may already have this in one or more of his web UIs for Synchronet (?).
Yes, there's file area stuff in the latest, no FTP involved. It's slow when you have *lots* of files, which is something I mean to do some work on.
Re: HTTP Access to Files
By: Digital Man to echicken on Tue Dec 18 2018 17:36:56
The file transfers themselves don't use ftp?
Nope, it's all done over HTTP. The requested file is read and sent in chunks to the client. (I thought about copying the file to a temp location and letting the webserver handle the transfer, but didn't want to deal with various cleanup scenarios.)
The file transfers themselves don't use ftp?
And you're handling all the credits and ratio enforcement stuff?
Re: HTTP Access to Files
By: Digital Man to echicken on Tue Dec 18 2018 21:19:25
And you're handling all the credits and ratio enforcement stuff?
Not at all.
Right now it only cares if the user 'can_download' from that
directory. (So even if that takes credits into account, I still need to adjust them after the file has downloaded.) Seems like it should be doable though.
Yes, there's file area stuff in the latest, no FTP involved. It's
slow when you have *lots* of files, which is something I mean to do
some work on.
Re: HTTP Access to Fileschunks
By: Digital Man to echicken on Tue Dec 18 2018 17:36:56
The file transfers themselves don't use ftp?
Nope, it's all done over HTTP. The requested file is read and sent in
to the client. (I thought about copying the file to a temp location and letting the webserver handle the transfer, but didn't want to deal withvarious
cleanup scenarios.)
And how is HTTP any more secure than ftp? ftp is a lightweight, bloat free
And how is HTTP any more secure than ftp? ftp is a lightweight, bloat free protocol. This may be the final nail in the coffin of Chrome for me. I
Sysop: | sneaky |
---|---|
Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
Users: | 31 |
Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
Uptime: | 102:05:50 |
Calls: | 2,071 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 11,134 |
Messages: | 947,015 |