CAPI ignores download requests when not in cache or handled by the downloads DPI.
I wondered why "Save link as" silently failed on some of my local web pages if I had not already visited the link. It turns out they were "file:///" links and "Save link as" sends a download request which the CAPI silently ignores if the URL is not cached and is not handled by the downloads DPI. I added a MSG_WARN to log this but haven't changed any behaviour. I still found it surprising and was wondering if it could be improved? Regards, Jeremy Henty
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:23:18PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
I wondered why "Save link as" silently failed on some of my local web pages if I had not already visited the link. It turns out they were "file:///" links and "Save link as" sends a download request which the CAPI silently ignores if the URL is not cached and is not handled by the downloads DPI.
I added a MSG_WARN to log this but haven't changed any behaviour. I still found it surprising and was wondering if it could be improved?
I think the right way to fix it is to redesign downloads DPI so that it doesn't duplicate downloading code. I already said that in Gopher DPI therad. Instead, Dillo could download files and pass them to downloads DPI. Downloads DPI then shows progress and saves files. As I understand, the idea is to have one window for all downloads across many copies of Dillo where progress can be shown and requests to cancel them can be passed to the right copy of Dillo. In the current state only http, https and ftp links are passed to DPI, you can see it in a_Cache_download_enabled.
p37sitdu at lavabit.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:23:18PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
I wondered why "Save link as" silently failed on some of my local web pages if I had not already visited the link. It turns out they were "file:///" links and "Save link as" sends a download request which the CAPI silently ignores if the URL is not cached and is not handled by the downloads DPI. [...]
[...] Instead, Dillo could download files and pass them to downloads DPI. Downloads DPI then shows progress and saves files. As I understand, the idea is to have one window for all downloads across many copies of Dillo where progress can be shown and requests to cancel them can be passed to the right copy of Dillo.
I wonder what is the real benefit of a separate downloads DPI. Is it actually useful to have one downloads window for all Dillo processes? The downloads DPI is rather different from all the rest: it is the only one that links to FLTK and it doesn't send HTML back to Dillo. Do we really benefit from putting downloading in a separate process? Regards, Jeremy Henty
Jeremy wrote:
I wonder what is the real benefit of a separate downloads DPI. Is it actually useful to have one downloads window for all Dillo processes? The downloads DPI is rather different from all the rest: it is the only one that links to FLTK and it doesn't send HTML back to Dillo. Do we really benefit from putting downloading in a separate process?
I think I would prefer to save things using dillo directly rather than having dillo get something, figure out that it can't display it, abort the connection, have this other process start over again in another window... (I tend to use wget by hand in order to avoid all of that.)
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 10:30:04PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
p37sitdu at lavabit.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:23:18PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
I wondered why "Save link as" silently failed on some of my local web pages if I had not already visited the link. It turns out they were "file:///" links and "Save link as" sends a download request which the CAPI silently ignores if the URL is not cached and is not handled by the downloads DPI. [...]
[...] Instead, Dillo could download files and pass them to downloads DPI. Downloads DPI then shows progress and saves files. As I understand, the idea is to have one window for all downloads across many copies of Dillo where progress can be shown and requests to cancel them can be passed to the right copy of Dillo.
I wonder what is the real benefit of a separate downloads DPI. Is it actually useful to have one downloads window for all Dillo processes?
I think downloading should not be done by downloads DPI: this way it have to support all the protocols Dillo and its plugins support. But tracking of downloads can be left there so we don't see the difference between two dillo processes and two dillo windows.
The downloads DPI is rather different from all the rest: it is the only one that links to FLTK and it doesn't send HTML back to Dillo. Do we really benefit from putting downloading in a separate process?
Cookies DPI doesn't send HTML too. Downloads and cookies are server DPIs, they are used to share resources between processes.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 10:30:04PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
p37sitdu at lavabit.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:23:18PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
I wondered why "Save link as" silently failed on some of my local web pages if I had not already visited the link. It turns out they were "file:///" links and "Save link as" sends a download request which the CAPI silently ignores if the URL is not cached and is not handled by the downloads DPI.
Capi shows a warning in the command line... Anyway, the request (a local file copy) is ignored, but can be implemented easily in the dpi for orthogonality.
[...] I wonder what is the real benefit of a separate downloads DPI. Is it actually useful to have one downloads window for all Dillo processes?
You'll find the rationale in doc/Dpid.txt -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (4)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
onepoint＠starurchin.org -
p37sitdu＠lavabit.com