Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.programmer > #320 > unrolled thread

a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.programmer

Contents

  a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-20 17:23 +0100
    Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-05-20 21:17 +0100
      Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-20 21:45 +0100
        Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-05-20 22:49 +0100
        Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-22 07:28 +0100
          Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-05-22 13:28 +0100
            Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-22 16:19 +0100
        Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk (Jonathan Graham Harston) - 2011-05-22 17:30 +0100
          Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-24 14:36 +0100
    Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-05-21 10:29 +0100
      Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Andrew Hodgkinson <ahodgkin@rowing.org.uk> - 2011-05-21 10:39 +0100
      Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-21 13:13 +0100
        Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-22 03:37 +0200
          Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-22 07:17 +0100
            Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-22 09:45 +0200
              Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-05-22 10:31 +0100
                Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-22 12:57 +0200
                  Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 01:11 +0200
                    Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Alan Adams <alan@adamshome.org.uk> - 2011-05-24 17:30 +0100
                Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 01:03 +0200
              Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-22 16:41 +0100
            Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 00:57 +0200
              Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-24 14:14 +0100
        Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-05-22 18:54 +0100
          Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> - 2011-05-23 07:08 +0100
            Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2011-05-23 08:01 -0700
            Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-24 01:44 +0200
              Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk (Jonathan Graham Harston) - 2011-05-29 23:49 +0100
                Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 12:11 +0200
                  Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs Frank de Bruijn <zuiderduin@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 07:45 +0200
                Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs Frank de Bruijn <zuiderduin@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-31 07:38 +0200
    Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Ron <beeb@woosh.co.nz> - 2011-05-29 20:50 +1200
    Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some websites? Ron Briscoe <ron.briscoe@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 16:26 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#337

On 22 May 2011, John Williams (News) wrote:
> In article <dc053cd751.rogerarm@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
>    Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> But I'm not even sure I can run PHP, I'd have to check first.

> Upload a file with this content:

> <?php
> phpinfo();
> ?>

> and name it 'phpinfo.php' ('phpinfo/php' under RISC OS).

> Calling this 'page' with your browser will either confirm you have PHP
> available and tell you lots about it, or do nothing useful at all if you
> haven't.

Oooh, well, fancy that. Thanks John. That small program does indeed 
run on my website, and gives oodles of information.

I'm not sure where that gets me in this particular instance, but it is 
useful to know that I can run PHP should I ever have a need to do so.

-- 

Cheers
Roger
A piece of string has two ends but no beginning

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#341

On 22/05/2011 08:17, Roger Darlington wrote:

> There's the bug-bear again. It seems I would have to run this PHP in
> every directory, of which there are hundreds...

Make it scan recursively by itself.

I suggested it to be directory-specific for the following reasons:
   1. Less server clobbering
   2. More immediate results coming through
   3. You can control which directories to scan in an intelligent
      manner - which is implementation defined, of course.

It will, obviously, need a 'control' program running on your computer...


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#345

On 23 May 2011, Rick Murray  wrote:
> On 22/05/2011 08:17, Roger Darlington wrote:

>> There's the bug-bear again. It seems I would have to run this PHP in
>> every directory, of which there are hundreds...

> Make it scan recursively by itself.

> I suggested it to be directory-specific for the following reasons:
>    1. Less server clobbering
>    2. More immediate results coming through
>    3. You can control which directories to scan in an intelligent
>       manner - which is implementation defined, of course.

> It will, obviously, need a 'control' program running on your computer...

That makes two programs. Time for me to give in and call it a bad job.
Unless, of course, someone has already done it.


> Best wishes,

> Rick.


-- 

Cheers
Roger
All who wander are not lost

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#336

Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> wrote:

> But what do you do when the two get out of sync?

Why would they?

And even if they do, why can't you just re-upload the files that have
changed on the local copy more recently than the last upload date?


-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#339

On 22 May 2011, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts  wrote:
> Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> But what do you do when the two get out of sync?

> Why would they?

That's a simple question to answer Jeremy: Human operator error. Mine 
:-)

But because neither FTPc nor SiteMatch operate on a closed-loop 
feedback system, relying instead on open-loop non-feedback, any error 
like this will not be corrected.

> And even if they do, why can't you just re-upload the files that have
> changed on the local copy more recently than the last upload date?

Perhaps because missing files not on the website are not the only 
mis-sync that can happen. Extra files on the website can also be a 
problem.

It would be much better if a closed-loop system could be devised for 
upload. I know, people say it is impossible because the web has been 
so badly designed, using different OS's for servers all over the place 
with differing ways of not feeding date information or size 
information back.  The sooner this situation is rectified, the better. 
Perhaps the WWW consortium or some other over-seeing body (BSI, ASI?) 
should set better standards on server OS design? [Some hope... Maybe 
next century... ]



-- 

Cheers
Roger
If you start nowhere, you'll finish up in the same place

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#340

Roger Darlington wrote:
> upload. I know, people say it is impossible because the web has been
> so badly designed, using different OS's for servers all over the place
> with differing ways of not feeding date information or size
> information back.

Depends whether your FTP client uses LIST (human-readable
list of files) or MLSD (machine-readable list of files). Even LIST
responses are fairly semi-rigidly laid out, eg mostly:
drwxr-xr-x   4 root root    4096 Feb  2  2007 acpi

JGH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#344

On 23/05/2011 08:08, Roger Darlington wrote:

> It would be much better if a closed-loop system could be devised for
> upload. I know, people say it is impossible because the web has been
> so badly designed,

Not exactly. I've postulated a PHP scanning routine to run on the server 
to return a definite value per file, this would run in sync with 
software on the local machine to do local comparisons. How you handle 
special cases (file on server, not on local; as you mentioned) is simply 
a programmatic decision. Delete it? Copy it local? You can defer the 
actual update process to, once scan complete and you have a job list, 
just let it run through the night so data transfer won't impact normal use.

It is not hard, and thanks to server-side scripting, it isn't 
particularly difficult. Back in the '90s? That's when it'd have been 
painful...


> using different OS's for servers all over the place

And you see this as a bad thing *how*? Would you rather World+Kitten was 
stuck on IIS with FrontPage extensions and half-assed SHTML support?

At least having a choice, we can... um... make a choice. ;-)


Refer to the topic in csam regarding CJE's plans for a super-duper 
somewhat epic shiny new website, and the discussions regarding the best 
way to implement it. You know, us bedroom hacker types would probably 
all start with PHP and MySQL because it is friendly and comfortable. 
There's a lot of PHP on my site.

But for something like that which has been envisioned, you would need a 
more hardcore (capable and very solid) database system than MySQL, and 
there are alternative languages which might provide better results - 
such as the punctuation abuse that is perl, the amusingly-named Ruby on 
Rails, and so forth. And if that just doesn't scale up, you might have 
to consider rolling your own, as the likes of Google and Facebook have done.


Sure, it's way from what you want to do, but not so much really. If we 
all used one OS and one server, you'd get a bunch of functions and 
facilities and, well, anything outside of The One True Way would either 
simply not exist, or it would be shunned. [just ask any Apple user :-P ]


> with differing ways of not feeding date information or size information back.

??? I have just loaded WinSCP (SCP/SFTP/FTP client). My current host, my 
previous host, the ftp server in my mobile phone (!), my tiny bit of 
Orange webspace, and two others I won't mention. All work, all report 
files, dates, and permissions.
I can also ftp into my computer from my PVR (having first telnetted in 
from the computer). It isn't as useless as it sounds, it's a quick way 
to apply additional features, like fsck for FAT drives, without using an 
SD card (etc) to transfer the file(s). Anyway, the point is, all these 
different bits of kit seem to talk to each other just fine. It isn't 
*that* non-standard. Because while technical implementation might vary, 
the protocol used is covered by an RFC. The RFC is "the final word" - 
remember that if you see your email software prefixing "Re :" to the 
subject line. Several do, several are *wrong*. No IFs, BUTs, MAYBEs, or 
ELSEs, the RFC says "Re: ", thus it is "Re: ". ENDIF.


> The sooner this situation is rectified, the better.

There are more important things...


> Perhaps the WWW consortium or some other over-seeing body (BSI, ASI?)
> should set better standards on server OS design? [Some hope... Maybe
> next century... ]

What would be your main criteria? The ability to easily sync site and 
offline copy?

I'm afraid I'd consider flexibility, reliability, and security as the 
important points, and not necessarily in that order, by the way.

However, asides from following the RFCs, how do you plan to set any sort 
of "standard" for a server or its operating system? Do you have any idea 
of how different Windows and Linux are to each other? And do you have 
any idea how different those are to an intensive-use datacentre with 
distributed computing? Do you really think the entirety of www.bbc.co.uk 
or www.google.com is handled by just one machine?
Well, www.heyrick.co.uk *is*. The requirements are vastly different.

I'm afraid I'd see an attempt to codify some sort of standard as a giant 
step backwards (not to mention the cynical view that any such standard 
will favour those with the most cash to throw around, much like as is 
happening with alterations to copyright legislation).


Having said all this, the pie in the sky predicts it will be moot in a 
few years. We'll all be living on cloud nine and anything we need to 
access will be... there... wherever "there" happens to be.


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#367 — Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs

heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> the protocol used is covered by an RFC. The RFC is "the final word" -
> remember that if you see your email software prefixing "Re :" to the
> subject line. Several do, several are *wrong*. No IFs, BUTs, MAYBEs, or
> ELSEs, the RFC says "Re: ", thus it is "Re: ". ENDIF.
 
<flame on>
Ah, but it's a *request* for *comments*, so it's not a standard,
it's just a comment, innit. So, I'm going to make my email client
say "Goes to" instead of "To: " and have no end-of-lines and "My
name" instead of "From: " 'cos it's just a comment, innit.
<flame off>
 
-- 
J.G.Harston - jgh@mdfs.net - mdfs.net/jgh
Whitby Yards Gazetteer - http://mdfs.net/Docs/Books/YofWhitby/Gazetteer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#368 — Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs

On 30/05/2011 00:49, Jonathan Graham Harston wrote:

> Ah, but it's a *request* for *comments*, so it's not a standard,

Yes, I do wonder why it is called that when they're used as 
semi-official "standards".


> it's just a comment, innit.

I didn't know you spoke like that. Should I try reading this message 
with a Mockney accent? ;-)


> So, I'm going to make my email client say "Goes to" instead of "To: "

Feel free to. You, however, possibly won't get your mail out the door...


> <flame off>

That's good. You'll feel better now. Go lie down...


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#374 — Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs

In article <4de36d3a$0$30759$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>,
   Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30/05/2011 00:49, Jonathan Graham Harston wrote:

> > Ah, but it's a *request* for *comments*, so it's not a standard,

> Yes, I do wonder why it is called that when they're used as
> semi-official "standards".

There's also a 'standards' list. E.g. RFC5321 is also STD0010, RFC5322
is STD0011 and so on. Nothing semi-official about it.

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/std-index.txt

Regards,
Frank

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#373 — Re: a program to read/compare the size of files on some webs

In article <110530002501@arcade.demon.co.uk>,
   Jonathan Graham Harston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <flame on>
> Ah, but it's a *request* for *comments*, so it's not a standard,
> it's just a comment, innit. So, I'm going to make my email client
> say "Goes to" instead of "To: " and have no end-of-lines and "My
> name" instead of "From: " 'cos it's just a comment, innit.
> <flame off>

LOL!

You talking about the internet message format? RFC5322, previously known
as RFC2822 and RFC0822? Actually, that's also STD0011. Guess what the
'STD' stands for (no, it's not *that*!). ;-)

Regards,
Frank

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#362

In message <e3d16bd651.rogerarm@rogerarm.freeuk.com>
          Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> wrote:

> 
> Has anyone written, or know of, a program that will compare the 
> filesizes of files on a local copy of a website, with that on the 
> website itself.
> 
> It has, in the past, been claimed that this is not possible. But to 
> me, on my website, it looks eminently possible, because using FTPc I 
> can see the filesizes of the files on the website itself.
> 
> But rather than start writing a program from scratch, someone must 
> have written a program that does likewise. It may not work on every 
> website, but it should be possible to write one that works on SOME 
> websites meethinks, in particular those websites that allow the 
> reading of filesizes...
> 
> 
> 
I came across this one today.

WebMan(As featured in Acorn User! No, really!)
Purpose:
WebMan is a simple, clean, fast tool to help with the management of websites.
Specifically, WebMan maintains a database that represents files present on the (remote) website and can compare that against the local copy of the site in order to work out what operations (uploads, deletions, etc.) are required to make the remote site up to date with respect to the local copy. 
As a bonus, output may be in the form of a command script to throw at sFTP. This allows website maintenance to be handled by simply running obeyfiles to upload changes and acknowledge than an upload succeded. 

I dont have the experience, just giving you the option to look.

http://www.zen22994.zen.co.uk/musus/wip/index.htm

Ron M.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#363

In article <e3d16bd651.rogerarm@rogerarm.freeuk.com>,
   Roger Darlington <rogerarm@freeuk.com> wrote:

> Has anyone written, or know of, a program that will compare the 
> filesizes of files on a local copy of a website, with that on the 
> website itself.

> It has, in the past, been claimed that this is not possible. But to 
> me, on my website, it looks eminently possible, because using FTPc I 
> can see the filesizes of the files on the website itself.

> But rather than start writing a program from scratch, someone must 
> have written a program that does likewise. It may not work on every 
> website, but it should be possible to write one that works on SOME 
> websites meethinks, in particular those websites that allow the 
> reading of filesizes...

You could always look at 'WebChange by Vince Hudd;
<http://www.webchange.co.uk>

Vince is very approachable and if WebChange does not do what you want,then I
am sure that if possible he will try to see that it does ;-).

-- 
 ron.briscoe@blueyonder.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.programmer

csiph-web