That is good enough.
Don't we all love IE? When we discover bugs in our won code we can
think of IE and feel better about ourselves.
Massimo
On Mar 11, 3:14 pm, Timothy Farrell <tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote:
> So I was testing with IE 5.5+. and I hit a bug uploading...but the bug
> is in IE. It kept failing on uploading very large files and I couldn't
> figure it out. Turns out, IE was sending this http header:
>
> Content-Length: -556031510
>
> Oops. This is in IE 5.5 all the way to IE 8. I suspect that anything
> over 2 GB is overflowing the signed int.
>
> Anyway I'm calling the IE family good for anything under 2GB.
>
> -tim
>
> On 3/11/2010 2:25 PM, Timothy Farrell wrote:
>
> > That was FF 3.6 on Win7. I'm going to try some less well behaved
> > browsers (IE 5.5+ via IEtester) next.
>
> > On 3/11/2010 2:21 PM, mdipierro wrote:
> >> Which browsers? The problem with cherrypy< 3.x was for example that
> >> different browser treated in different ways the server delay and some
> >> browser truncated files on download. I want to make sure that all
> >> common browsers are tested.
>
> >> Massimo
>
> >> On Mar 11, 2:18 pm, Timothy Farrell<tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote:
> >>> Slight correction:
>
> >>> db.define_table('image',Field('upload', 'upload'))
>
> >>> I have successfully up- and downloaded files as large as 480MB and apps
> >>> as large as 160MB (any larger apps crashed on unzipping). In all cases
> >>> I was testing over HTTPS.
>
> >>> -tim
>
> >>> On 3/11/2010 1:04 PM, mdipierro wrote:
>
> >>>> Rocket 0.3.1 is IN. Please download from trunk and start testing.
> >>>> Use this code
> >>>> db.define_table('image',Field('upload'))
> >>>> Please test upload and download of a large files via appadmin into
> >>>> "image" table.
> >>>> Please let us know which browser you tested and whether it worked or
> >>>> you experience any problem.
> >>>> Massimo
> >>>> On Mar 11, 12:24 pm, Timothy Farrell<tfarr...@swgen.com> wrote:
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> For a production system, I'm more interested in stability than
> >>>>>> performance. And despite the admitted arbitrariness of
> >>>>>> version-numbering choices, it's hard to make the case to
> >>>>>> management that moving to an 0.x server is safe.
> >>>>>> What do *you* mean by labeling Rocket 0.x?
> >>>>> That's a fair question. When I started, I had a certain set of
> >>>>> features
> >>>>> and goals that I planned to reach. Upon finishing all of those
> >>>>> features
> >>>>> and goal, there would be a 1.0 release. Since starting at least
> >>>>> three
> >>>>> of these goals have fallen by the wayside due to their
> >>>>> improbability or
> >>>>> lack of flexibility withing Python or the WSGI specification.
> >>>>> In the end, I'll probably skip a few 0.x releases and go straight
> >>>>> to 1.0
> >>>>> whenever I feel that there are enough of the features I originally
> >>>>> set
> >>>>> out to include.
> >>>>> Like web2py, I strive to make every announced/released version stable
> >>>>> enough to include in a project. I've been running web2py on
> >>>>> different
> >>>>> versions of Rocket for several months now.
> >>>>> -tim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
