[pLog-svn] 1.2.6 release?

[Jon Daley]

http://bugs.lifetype.net/view.php?id=1435

Fixing the cache and the spam/pipeline issue are the main issues for this 
release.

I just looked through the wordpress code quickly, and can't see the 404 
handler.  Do you know what file it is in?


On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mark Wu wrote:

> Hi Jon:
>
> You can just check the wordpress, they implement the same idea, too.
>
> BTW, what cache bug?
>
> Mark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: plog-svn-bounces at devel.lifetype.net
>> [mailto:plog-svn-bounces at devel.lifetype.net] On Behalf Of Jon Daley
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:43 PM
>> To: LifeType Developer List
>> Subject: Re: [pLog-svn] 1.2.6 release?
>>
>>  	I haven't had much luck finding out any documentation
>> on what the correct answer is.  To me, it seems that the
>> search engines should be smart enough to parse the parameters
>> correctly, and if they get a 404 with one parameter and a 200
>> with another, not get confused and throw out the whole site.
>>
>>  	I finally found one article that says what someone else
>> does, which is what I expected.
>>
>> http://www.spip.net/en_article3583.html
>>
>>  	I tried looking up the definitions of URI, URL, URN to
>> see if parameters were included in that definition, but I
>> could't find that answer.
>>
>>  	In any case, I would rather release what you have
>> checked in than delay the release any longer.  A couple more
>> people have seen the cache bug, and it'd be nice to solve that.
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mark Wu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Reto & Jon:
>>>
>>> Sorry  for the late reply. Busy recently.
>>>
>>> URL = Universal "Resource" Locator
>>>
>>> The reason that we return 200 instead of 404 in "native url
>> mode" is
>>> becasue the "resource" in "native url mode" is the script itself
>>> instead of the whole url.
>>>
>>> So, the "script" does "founded" in ths case,  return 200 is a valid
>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> But in Custom/Pretty/Reqrite mode, the resource is the
>> "whole url string".
>>> (Just like the RESTful url)
>>>
>>> So, we did not found the "URL", and we should return 404,
>> instead of 200.
>>> Even we already provide a error page here.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: plog-svn-bounces at devel.lifetype.net
>>>> [mailto:plog-svn-bounces at devel.lifetype.net] On Behalf Of Jon Daley
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:45 AM
>>>> To: LifeType Developer List
>>>> Subject: Re: [pLog-svn] 1.2.6 release?
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Wu wrote:
>>>>> About the bug(or say issue) about return 404 or 200 status
>>>> code ... I
>>>>> think we should fix it before we release 1.2.6
>>>>  	ok.
>>>>
>>>>> 1. If we use raw url (native url),  we should return the
>> customized
>>>>> page( with our current error page "article fetch error")
>> with http
>>>>> response status 200. Becasue in native url, the script
>> name is the
>>>>> reasouce we want to fetch, the other parts just only parameters.
>>>>  	Is that necessary?  I would expect either search
>> engines to not be
>>>> able to search a parameterized site at all, or be able to
>> distinguish
>>>> different parameters as different sites, and so not think
>> that a 404
>>>> on one page would mean a
>>>> 404 on all others.  I was under the impression that search engines
>>>> didn't like parameterized sites, and so that is why we created the
>>>> "search engine friendly" URLs before we had custom URLs.  But, I
>>>> don't really know the answer to that, and if someone else
>> says that
>>>> isn't how it works, then we should return a 200.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. If we use custom/pretty/mod_rewrite url, we should return
>>>>> customized page( with our current error page "article fetch
>>>> error" )
>>>>> with http reponse status 404. Becasue the "whole url" is
>>>> the resource
>>>>> we want to fetch. These three kind of url is more similar
>>>> to RESTful url ...
>>>>  	That sounds good.
>>>>
>>>>> ** There will be one problem if we use this method. In ie6,
>>>> if it get
>>>>> 404 status, it will redirect to it's own 404 page in
>> local desktop.
>>>>> But, I think it is okay.
>>>>  	That is a setting in IE6 (and IE7 I think), and that is the
>>>> person's choice, and we shouldn't design around that.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pLog-svn mailing list
>>>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>>>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pLog-svn mailing list
>>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jon Daley
>> http://jon.limedaley.com/
>>
>> Always be sincere, even when you don't mean it.
>> -- Irene Peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> pLog-svn mailing list
>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>

-- 
Jon Daley
http://jon.limedaley.com/

If everything is coming your way then you're in the wrong lane.
-- Anonymous