|
ForumWatch runs once at the beginning of the page unless you specifically click the button. Shouldn't be that...
We are certainly uncertain
at least I'm pretty sure I am...
|
|
|
|
|
David Stone wrote: ForumWatch runs once at the beginning of the page unless you specifically click the button. Shouldn't be that...
It does cause momentary flickers in the status area when the request returns. Though i gotta say, i can barely see them even when i'm watching for 'em, but that's all i can think of. Well, that and the request(s) to pull the rest of a partial thread. They're probably all running back-to-back (assuming Rex hasn't changed the "max two requests per server" setting), so with several forumwatch boxes and a long thread, it could conceivably flash several times.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
If someone's got that many forumwatches that it's actually causing a slowdown, that's kinda sad.  I use two. One for the Insiders forum. One for here.
But yeah...I guess if you're loading that partial thread along with more than a couple forumwatch boxes, it'd queue up the requests for a bit. But it looked like Rex's Firefox was going crazy. And his screencast was almost 30 seconds long. And it didn't look like he'd just loaded that page.
We are certainly uncertain
at least I'm pretty sure I am...
|
|
|
|
|
I *had* exactly 1 forum watch. It's gone now. I restarted FF and the problem persists. But it's got to be something unique to me as I don't think it's affecting anyone else. My guess is that it's a roboform update that mast have done it which sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. CPhog hasn't changed since...the 20th[^]. So if it just started today, then it's likely something that changed on your end.
We are certainly uncertain
at least I'm pretty sure I am...
|
|
|
|
|
You nailed it. I set fasterfox back to default firefox settings and now the problem is gone. Which is really weird... So it was the max connections I guess...
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Dual Quad-Core. Father to a murdered process, husband to a murdered thread. And I will have my affinity, in this life or the next. - Gladiator. (Okay, not quite Gladiator but close.)
I work to live. I do not live to work. My clients do not seem capable of grasping this fact.
|
|
|
|
|
You know, Rex, you seem to have more issues with CPhog than anybody else.
We are certainly uncertain
at least I'm pretty sure I am...
|
|
|
|
|
Well not really. Who can truly complain? There's IE 7 ( just now arrived at where FF was in 2002 ) and there's FireFox beloved by the masses and soon to be christened as St. Firefox. Well... Guess I'll get on with it now.
One of my gripes is that when you post a new message or reply you get just enough feedback to know that if there aren't little "..."'s appearing somewhere your message isn't posting and probably won't. If you do see the little "..."'s appear odds are good it will post most times (998 out of 1000).
I think it would be useful if there was a bit more information (if possible). Like, "Establishing Connection..." -> "Connection Established..." -> "Sending Message..." -> "Message Received..." -> "Message Posted..." -> "Process Completed..."
Obviously I'm just guessing about most of that you may not have any way to get that granular on the process but if there was a way to know that things were happening and not just hanging that would be *so* nice.
Am I making sense or is the Advil I took having an adverse reaction with the Pumpkin Pie I just ate?
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: I think it would be useful if there was a bit more information (if possible). Like, "Establishing Connection..." -> "Connection Established..." -> "Sending Message..." -> "Message Received..." -> "Message Posted..." -> "Process Completed..."
Me too. As you surmised, the "little dots" indicate something good - that CP has received the request. However, there's still a good chance (well, this past week anyway) that CP will choke and throw back a server error instead of actually posting the message. 'Till i get a response from the server, there's just no way of knowing.
However, i could automatically retry upon server errors...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
I figured the dots were all you could really do because being the type of developer you are you seem to promote valuable feedback if you can from within CPhog when you can.
The connections to CP over the last week have sucked. You don't have to retry. I've noticed that sometimes if I retry to quickly it doesn't matter. Usually If I let it sit and come back in a minute or so it will post straight away. As I recall Chris confessed to have some type of round robin approach to which servers you got. Apparently everyone gets the garbage and if you just wait your next cycle will put you on a better server.
How about you just have CPhog play that super obnoxious sound-byte of that one soccer announcer screaming, "GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!" if a message posts. (I hate that sound byte more than any other sound byte in the world and if you've never heard it... Don't go looking for it. It's not worth the effort. Being a soccer player I always hated that guy.) 
|
|
|
|
|
JQuery's ajax stuff also has the ability to set timeouts...so we could retry after a set timeout...or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of which, i should probably stop treating "already posted" messages as errors.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
Behold, the Incredible Wide Editor.
Other changes thrown in just for the heck of it: username / email are now pulled from the user settings page (rather than an arbitrary "reply" page). Default sig is pulled from there as well (if no sigs have been configured). And the birthday and homepage link now appear in the quickbio.
|
|
|
|
|
What do y'all think? Personally, i never use it - WYSIWYG will accept and escape "special" characters (<&> etc.), while HTML allows full markup-hacky-funtimes. Removing the option would simplify the code a bit, as well as reducing the format choice to a simple toggle, freeing up more screen space for... other things.
Anyone feel differently? Any use for Plain Text i'm forgetting about?
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
Can we replace it with something that will help me sleep better?   
|
|
|
|
|
I could add a "paste items from Shog's worklog" button. That oughta bring The Sandman a-runnin'... 
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I think it's my own worklog that sent him fleeing.
I think I just need about 2 hours grilling some food over the barbecue to get things right again. Those black and blue burgers are calling my name. I think I'll have to eat about 4 of them and then I know I'll sleep better.
|
|
|
|
|
code-frog wrote: I think I'll have to eat about 4 of them and then I know I'll sleep better.
Mmm... You could stop over and have some spaghetti with us. Rich, thick tangy-garlic-y sauce atop a big pile of starchy pasta; Relaxation-ona-plate.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never been in favor of keeping it.
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow, i figured that.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
What gave it away? My initial push to get Midas into CPhog, the constant questioning of why that option still exists, or the fact that I subconsciously crippled it by ripping out code that preserved formatting when switching to the plain text option?
|
|
|
|
|
David Stone wrote: I subconsciously crippled it by ripping out code that preserved formatting when switching to the plain text option?
Ah, did you notice i put that back? Is it still broken on your bleeding-edge nightlies? I actually don't care about the Plain Text aspect so much as the "no linebreaks in quotes" aspect.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
|
|
|
|
|
Heh. I haven't updated my working copy in a while. It's a mess of half-broken features I just haven't had time to work on now that we're nearing the end of the quarter.
|
|
|
|
|
I assigned you a ticket.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
