Nice. Sounds doable. / Hampus Anthony Bryan skrev: > Nils was kind enough to provide details (and I imagine help along the > way as well): http://bugs.code.downthemall.net/trac/ticket/413#comment:4 > > Replying to ant: > > Nils, will you still accept a patch for this? > > Sure. > > If so, could you provide some guidance on where to start? > > The verification code lives in trunk/chrome/content/dta/manager/verificator.js > > There is already whole file checksumming support, so is > checksumming each chunk the difficult part, or is it changing DTA to > re-request a chunk when the checksums don't match? > > There are multiple parts needed to implemented: > > * Parsing the metalink trunk/chrome/content/dta/manager/metalinker.js > * Storing stuff, so that is survives between sessions. This has to > be backwards-compatible, i.e. loading old queue items lacking the new > stuff has to be successful. See the .toSource methods > trunk/chrome/content/dta/manager.js > * Calculating the checksums > trunk/chrome/content/dta/manager/verificator.js > * Asking the user what he'd like to do in case of error. > * Setting up the retry chunks in case of error and starting the > download again(in the quest of uncoupling please do not mess with > QueueItem? data from verificator or similar, but instead provide some > public methods in QueueItem? that can be used for this matter). > > I know that esp. the verificator/metalinker code is not very well > designed and too tightly coupled. Any implementor should try not to > add even more coupling, however. > > See CreatingPatches. > > It would be great if a patch would do the following, however this is optional: > > * split verificator into a re-usable js module and some "user" code. > * split metalinker into a re-usable js module (parser/validation), > interface code (the selection dialog) and manager.js stuff. > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Hampus Wessman<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> True. I'll look into it! Shouldn't be that hard. >> / Hampus >> >> >> Ant Bryan skrev: >> >> thanks Hampus! I think it's one of the most useful too! so much so, >> that I think it may be more important than ME2. not to knock ME2! :) >> but ME1 is great enough and gets us by fine (not that the new features >> would be good too). >> >> I wonder how much work this actually is? >> >> On May 9, 4:29 am, Hampus Wessman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> That would be really nice. Chunk checksums is one of the coolest >> metalink features, IMO! >> >> I could do this after I've finished Metalink Editor 2.0, but that might >> take some time. It would be even better if someone else did it before! >> >> Hampus Wessman >> >> On Fri, 8 May 2009 17:31:15 -0400 >> >> Anthony Bryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I'd guess that most >> metalink users are taking advantage of them with DownThemAll!. >> >> >> DTA is easy to use, pleasant looking, & just a Firefox extension install >> away. >> >> >> the only metalink related feature it lacks is repairing a download if >> the metalink has chunk checksums. it already verifies checksums for >> the whole file. >> >> >> I think this should be one of our higher priorities, because of the >> amount of people that DTA reaches. for instance, openSUSE uses >> metalinks with chunk checksums, but if a downloader uses a metalink >> client that doesn't support them then the downloader could get >> frustrated if there's an error in their big download... >> >> >> we have this on our ideas page & here's the request in the DTA bugtracker >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion/web/gsoc-ideas >> http://bugs.code.downthemall.net/trac/ticket/413 >> >> >> does anyone with JS skills want to work on this? Nils had said he >> would accept a patch. >> maybe someone from the openSUSE community could do it? >> >> >> -- >> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [http://www.metalinker.org] >> )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metalink Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/metalink-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
