Metropol

may i draw your attention to
http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... 233#602233

Useless to me, what's happening there?

gav's link doesn't work as the filename has a space in it and it appears the URL making gizmo doesn;t like spaces

So that's now three issues I have with 1.0

1) Handling of spaces, shouldn't be too hard to replace %20 with %5F upon upload.
2) How if you delete a file in order to upload a newer version how it adds _(x) to the end of the filename instead of just going over the first version.
3) The implication that when I want something from the upload service I intend to save it, no I really don't and I do know how to right click should I want to download it.

1. Fixed. My bad - Made a hasty code change without thinking it through.
2. I figure there's less ambiguity, plus that way if someone uploads something then tries to change it there's some accountability
3. I shall take it under advisement.

Sput wrote:1. Fixed. My bad - Made a hasty code change without thinking it through.
2. I figure there's less ambiguity, plus that way if someone uploads something then tries to change it there's some accountability
3. I shall take it under advisement.

2 interests me,if a file is deleted then shouldn't it follow that another file with the same name should take its place instead of being changed for a now removed file... unless there's something about file retention you're keeping to yourself. 3 though wasn't always the case and is something new from around or just before the 1.0 release.

the filename is kept in the database even when the file is deleted for accountability reasons. so in theory, it *is* _(2) even though its not.

To clarify Hyma's rambling incoherent comment there, my thinking was this:

Someone uploads a signature containing a naughty picture, someone else gets pissed off and whinges. The user then deletes it and uploads another with the same name to cover their tracks BUT because of this setup it's clear that it's a new version.

Also, I have completed my thinking about it and you should now be finding most files that can display in the browser are doing so. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY. NOW ADMIT IT'S A BUNNY.

Sput wrote:To clarify Hyma's rambling incoherent comment there

I do apologise, loudGeoff has friend my brain somewhat with his unique versions of logic and debate.

Sput wrote:To clarify Hyma's rambling incoherent comment there, my thinking was this:

Someone uploads a signature containing a naughty picture, someone else gets pissed off and whinges. The user then deletes it and uploads another with the same name to cover their tracks BUT because of this setup it's clear that it's a new version.

I see... I'd figure in those scenarios that they'd be feeling the odd end of Hyma's moccasins after that.

Sput wrote:Also, I have completed my thinking about it and you should now be finding most files that can display in the browser are doing so. I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY. NOW ADMIT IT'S A BUNNY.

I am and no.

For Nini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s13dLaTI ... re=related
Lots of metrolove xx