Unable to open own file list

[privatemeta 0]

Since I installed version 1.3.0, I cannot open my own file list anymore if it's over a certain size (somewhere around 1TB and up).

I tried to rebuild or rehash all files, but that didn't work, as soon as I reached over the TB area, the own file list closed instantly. I can still open others file lists though.

(I wouldn't have switched, but because of the update message I couldn't use the old version anymore)

[Crise 26]

Since I installed version 1.3.0, I cannot open my own file list anymore if it's over a certain size (somewhere around 1TB and up).

I tried to rebuild or rehash all files, but that didn't work, as soon as I reached over the TB area, the own file list closed instantly. I can still open others file lists though.

(I wouldn't have switched, but because of the update message I couldn't use the old version anymore)

This is probably caused by a hard limit in the new xml parser in 1.3.0. This will be fixed in 1.3.1 which will be out any day now.

Regarding this update message, I don't see why people are so displeased with upgrading their clients in the first place, it's not like you'll loose anything ion the process if you do it correctly.

(this comes from someone who updates his client multiple times a day at best times).

Especially when the reason for blocking old versions was clearly stated in more than one place. Or would you prefer your client to be exploitable over the internet.

[privatemeta 0]

This is probably caused by a hard limit in the new xml parser in 1.3.0. This will be fixed in 1.3.1 which will be out any day now.

Regarding this update message, I don't see why people are so displeased with upgrading their clients in the first place, it's not like you'll loose anything ion the process if you do it correctly.

(this comes from someone who updates his client multiple times a day at best times).

Especially when the reason for blocking old versions was clearly stated in more than one place. Or would you prefer your client to be exploitable over the internet.

I'm not USING my client over the internet, but that's beside the point... I guess you're doing it because others wouldn't update regularly, but it just makes me sorta pissed off that I have update from a (for me) perfectly working installation to a (again for me) buggy installation.

Edit:

P.S.: It's just bad that there's no possibility for advanced users to chose the point or time of upgrading.

[air 0]

...it just makes me sorta pissed off that I have update from a (for me) perfectly working installation to a (again for me) buggy installation.

You're a lucky guy, no version of apexdc had ever been perfect to me. Although 1.2.1 was sooo close to be.

Regarding your filelist - afaik a temporary solution for you is to lower the level of complexity of your folder tree in your share to meet the xml nesting requirement of 16.

[privatemeta 0]

You're a lucky guy, no version of apexdc had ever been perfect to me. Although 1.2.1 was sooo close to be.

Regarding your filelist - afaik a temporary solution for you is to lower the level of complexity of your folder tree in your share to meet the xml nesting requirement of 16.

Yeah, that might be an idea if that actually were an option. The folder tree is rather minimal already.

[Crise 26]

P.S.: It's just bad that there's no possibility for advanced users to chose the point or time of upgrading.

Well even if you are on LAN that doesn't stop you from being exploited by someone from the same LAN.

As for choosing time and place for update checks that might be some thought for future... but certainly not for any minor version. (like 1.3.1 which is due next)

[Lotus 0]

Crise: I agree that upgrating a buggy version is a must, especially since we are talking about Direct Connect.

However, you should only force update to a *very stable* new release. I also found myself into situation of updating to a buggyer version... :|

[Crise 26]

Crise: I agree that upgrating a buggy version is a must, especially since we are talking about Direct Connect.

However, you should only force update to a *very stable* new release. I also found myself into situation of updating to a buggyer version... :|

You know, that is probably not even true about 1.3.0 being buggier than 1.2.2... 1.3.0 has countless bug fixes (many from StrongDC merges, but that is irrelevant), it just so happens that the new bugs in 1.3.0 are more visible in every day use than the ones you had on 1.2.2.

What I am trying to say is that there will always be bugs... some more severe than others. And in terms of severe bugs, 1.3.0 has about one or two of those to my count (the xml nesting depth issue, and certain plugin related bug),

I acknowledge that some of the other bugs in 1.3.0 might be annoying... and that's why we are working on 1.3.1 as fast as we can manage. But if we work on it too fast then people will start saying: "This bug was in 1.3.0, why isn't it fixed in 1.3.1"

We could have pushed out an update the day after 1.3.0 had been released to include the few fixes we were missing from StrongDC 2.40, but we did not do that because we knew that there are also other bugs that needed to be addressed from our own changes.

Sure you can say that we should have done more throughout beta testing... but in regards to that we have limited resources and time. It also did not help that that some of the less severe bugs in 1.3.0 are on areas which are not used by everyone.

Also remember that ApexDC is a freeware open source project, so we have no obligations to anybody, nor does any of you have any obligations to us. You dislike the way we do things then there is always the other choice.

[Lotus 0]

You know better.

But maybe you have misjudged or misinterpreted me.

Your work is highly appreciated but I consider you open people. I speak frankly to you.

Never the less, the point remains. And the point (and my ideea) was: Why not release a 1.3.0 but NOT FORCE update, then wait a little bit, if it is stable, ok, if not, correct it, then RELEASE ANYWAY an (eventually better) 1.3.1 and THEN force update to it ? We ran 1.2 for such a long time... is such a disaster running it a bit more ?

It is expected that every version will have bugs. But you should agree, I think, that sometimes, especially when adding NEW features to the program, some NEW bugs may be introduced, and the stability or overall look of the program may be compromised more severe then usually.

But if I am wrong or I have upset you, then I am sorry and please accept my apologies. I never intended to say that your work is futile or not observed.

[privatemeta 0]

You know, that is probably not even true about 1.3.0 being buggier than 1.2.2... 1.3.0 has countless bug fixes (many from StrongDC merges, but that is irrelevant), it just so happens that the new bugs in 1.3.0 are more visible in every day use than the ones you had on 1.2.2.

What I am trying to say is that there will always be bugs... some more severe than others. And in terms of severe bugs, 1.3.0 has about one or two of those to my count (the xml nesting depth issue, and certain plugin related bug),

I acknowledge that some of the other bugs in 1.3.0 might be annoying... and that's why we are working on 1.3.1 as fast as we can manage. But if we work on it too fast then people will start saying: "This bug was in 1.3.0, why isn't it fixed in 1.3.1"

We could have pushed out an update the day after 1.3.0 had been released to include the few fixes we were missing from StrongDC 2.40, but we did not do that because we knew that there are also other bugs that needed to be addressed from our own changes.

Sure you can say that we should have done more throughout beta testing... but in regards to that we have limited resources and time. It also did not help that that some of the less severe bugs in 1.3.0 are on areas which are not used by everyone.

Also remember that ApexDC is a freeware open source project, so we have no obligations to anybody, nor does any of you have any obligations to us. You dislike the way we do things then there is always the other choice.

Not that I would want to make open source projects less worthy, I'm not even saying that some users might have to be forced or they would run around with gaping 10-year-old security holes, but there's a difference between

"I want to wait for the next, slightly more stable version" and "ok, now I have to go to the website, download the new program, uninstall the old one or the 'YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE' message won't disappear, install the new one just so I can start it again", but maybe you might just call me narrowminded there. I never said anything against update reminders, but it was just my opinion that the way it is now seemed slightly over the top...

[Crise 26]

It might be over the top but looking at the client selection in various public DC hubs... you wouldn't believe how many people deem to never upgrade their client.

While I can't do anything to get those users insisting on using oDC etc. to upgrade, at least I can make staying on old versions of Apex little more difficult to the average user. Yes, only a little more difficult.

And to prove that there are still users running versions like 0.4.0 or 0.2.2 of Apex.. as well as the very buggy beta versions of 1.0.0 (which is something that I do not understand at all, the bugs in those versions should be getting users to upgrade, but no). Despite all the measures we have taken to get people to upgrade.

To put it in other words. I have been in DC long enough to know that it's almost an exception rather than a rule for someone to actually upgrade their DC client (basically it only happens when a hub the user happens to go to suddenly says that clients older than x are no longer permitted, that is assuming the user thinks the hub is good enough to upgrade his client for).

Edit: and yes in theory I am all for letting the users make the choice between client versions... and if the number of people on outdated versions was less than it is, I probably wouldn't mind as much.

But since that is not the case, and since DC is not just one persons sandbox...