My Adventures in WinerLand
Last March 30th, I sent a message to the weblogs-com mailing list, the official place to discuss the Weblogs.Com pinging service.
I'm working on improving weblogs.com support for Blosxom -- the initial
pinging plugin had a race condition causing it to be reinvoked when
weblogs.com requested the page in response to the ping, leading to a vicious
circle until the limit for pings within a certian time period was reached.
Anyway, I think I have this fixed, but I'm still seeing two requests rather
than the I'm expecting:
64.75.32.137 - - [30/Mar/2003:11:53:36 -0800] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 14441 "http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/8.0.5 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [30/Mar/2003:11:53:41 -0800] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 210929 "http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/8.0.5 (WinNT)"
The pattern is always the same -- a small response (frequently but not always
14441 bytes) followed by a long one.
Is this expected behavior, or do I still have something broken?
--
Todd Larason | Soon to be an illegal: main() {int c; while
3500238865/p | ((c=getc())>=0){putchar©;}} Bad idea? Let your Senators
UIN: 4713026 | know. http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/
AIM: Militar | http://www.eff.org/
Yesterday, having received no replies, I sent it again with a brief addendum:
No responses to this, at all? Do other people get two requests in response to
a ping, or is it just me?
This time, Bill Kearney of Syndic8 posted a followup with some helpful information, but he didn't have an answer for why I was seeing double responses.
We had a brief civil conversation before Dave Winer, head Weblogs.Com honcho responded
I just turned off moderation on this list to save time and trouble for everyone -- so please edit your own posts and keep the paranoia out of it. Thanks.
Is there a question that I can help with. I don't think Weblogs.Com checks twice. What evidence do you have that it does.
Dave
He had directly addressed my main issue, but didn't think it was actually happening, and asked for evidence -- so I provided exactly that (again -- note the original message, posted twice, included a log snippit of just that)
64.75.32.137 - - [15/Apr/2003:13:14:33 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 12981
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [15/Apr/2003:13:14:39 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 210378
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [15/Apr/2003:18:38:17 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 12981
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [15/Apr/2003:18:38:24 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 213472
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [15/Apr/2003:22:44:45 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 14441
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [15/Apr/2003:22:44:50 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 213653
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:08:23:26 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 12981
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:08:23:32 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 214568
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:08:29:54 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 14441
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:08:30:04 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 214145
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:11:11:14 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 14441
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:11:11:25 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 214006
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:23:30:36 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 15901
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [16/Apr/2003:23:30:41 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 216133
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [17/Apr/2003:06:05:21 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 15901
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [17/Apr/2003:06:05:25 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 219094
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [17/Apr/2003:06:31:47 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 15901
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
64.75.32.137 - - [17/Apr/2003:06:31:52 -0700] "GET /blox/ HTTP/1.0" 200 218539
"http://subhonker7.userland.com/rcsPublic/" "Frontier/9.0 (WinNT)"
and so on and so on and so on
--
Free the mouse! http://eldred.cc/
Despite giving him exactly what he had asked for, Dave responded rather rudely
Dumping some log into a mail message does not make a very good bug report.
Geez Louise. Can you say, in English, what you did, what the software did, and what you think it should have done.
Dave
I replied, copying my original message again, with an addendum giving even more detail.
As I said -- I ping weblogs.com (HTTP ping,
http://newhome.weblogs.com/pingSiteForm in particular). I get two requests
back in response. I was only expecting to get one. This happens repeatedly,
in the stated pattern.
Is this normal? You said not, and asked for evidence, so I gave more
evidence.
Now Gregory Blake joined the conversation.
I've actually always seen this behavior out of weblogs.com, no matter
what blogging software I've used. I'd send a ping to weblogs.com and
see two hits in the server access logs from a machine at userland.com.
It is pretty easy to see if you have access to the logs and can watch
them as you send a ping (I just verified it). It's always done this
and I just assumed that's how it worked and never really questioned it
(though I was curious why it was hitting the server twice).
gregory
So at this point, two interested bystanders have replied politely and with evidence of having read my messages and understood them; one of them reports seeing exactly the same behavior I was seeing and wondering about.
Dave, however, seems to have either not ever read or completely forgotten what the question was, despite the subject line and the other messages over the previous few minutes
I can't tell from what you said here what makes your weblog different from the thousands of other blogs that ping Weblogs.Com every day. If you decide to post the information I'll try to figure out what's going wrong. Dave
I responded to Gregory -- yes, somewhat rudely, but it was only in response to Dave's repeated rudeness and unhelpfulness.
Thank you. I'll consider my software working and Dave Winer broken, and move on.
And I responded to Dave, rather more civilly than I think he deserved.
If I knew of anything materially different, I would of course have mentioned it.
Gregory Blake sees the same Weblogs.Com behavior I do, so it's entirely
possible there's not anything different.
Dave replied to my "Dave Winer broken" comment
Ouch. Now you have an idea why I don't rush in to help random people. Dave
Another bystandard, Matthew Trump, joined the fracas, telling me how to give a bug report (something I know well how to do, thank you very much, and which I wasn't trying to do in the first place as was clear from my messages).
One more bystander, Mike Rodriquez, replied to Dave's message, showing clearly that he had read and understood me perfectly well.
This isn't about his weblog being different. He just wondered if it
was normal for there to be 2 fetches from one's blog after a ping. that
is, why isn't one fetch (to check for true newness) sufficient?
many others noted this is normal behaviour; the reformed question now
is, why? not that it's a problem, but we're a curious lot, all of us,
including you ...
By this point, I had decided (again) not to follow up any more, but Dave's response to Mike just pushed my buttons.
He sure didn't say that. I thought he was saying that something at weblogs.com wasn't working. Also I'm not that curious, if I had nothing else to do maybe I would be, but I'm lucky to have lots of interesting stuff to keep me ridiculously busy. Dave
My replies to Dave and Matthew aren't in the web archive, though, because Dave censored them -- he replied to me, scolding me and saying I should be ashamed, and declaring the thread dead. Fine, I thought, let him have the last word, even if it's just totally insanely wrong.
Later, however, this showed up. I guess the thread is just closed to people who don't worship at Dave's feet.
Regrettably, when it comes to the written word, there are varying
degrees of communication abilites, and as such, I have a lot of
miscommunication incidents hurting a lot of people's feelings. As
for me, I never worry about what other's say anymore. If they give
me the information I want, I thank them, if they are rude, I just
ignore it, and if they get all their fun out of aggravating people,
I just ignore them. Keep helping people, Dave. Most of us appreciate
your efforts.
So, for the first time visible to the public, the last two censored messages I tried to send to the weblogs-com list.
From jtl@molehill.org Thu Apr 17 12:44:19 2003
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:44:19 -0700
From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
To: weblogs-com@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [weblogs-com] Re: doubled requests?
Message-ID: <20030417124419.A11458@molehill.org>
References: <024501c304e6$1cd20160$2000a8c0@wkearney.com> <20030417070843.A2910@molehill.org> <02a701c304f0$511504e0$2000a8c0@wkearney.com> <005701c304f1$38886c40$47d8f78c@DELL63> <20030417082046.A4619@molehill.org> <00b301c304f5$9e085270$47d8f78c@DELL63> <20030417082743.B4619@molehill.org> <28d901c3050f$0ab3cdf0$0201000a@murphy3> <20030417120058.B10184@molehill.org> <64627.68.161.220.164.1050611928.squirrel@www.matthewtrump.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <64627.68.161.220.164.1050611928.squirrel@www.matthewtrump.com>; from matt@vivacapitalism.com on Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:38:48PM -0500
X-PGP-Key-URL: http://www.molehill.org/~jtl/public.asc
X-Blog: http://molelog.molehill.org/
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1180
Lines: 25
On 17 April 03, Matthew Trump wrote:
> One of the hardest things--perhaps the hardest--about software
> development is interpretating complaints from users about bugs and
> features.
As a developer, I know this. And I was rude, and I'm partially sorry.
The fact remains though that Dave wasn't reading the information I was
providing, and when I provided the evidence he asked for he was rude to me
(see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weblogs-com/message/749,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weblogs-com/message/750 and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weblogs-com/message/751)
> This is obviously the result of something deep within the paradigms
> of software development. But the point is: be patient. If the
> developer tells you that you are not providing the right information,
> then, well, you aren't, even if you've said everything you think you
> possibly could have said about the problem.
It helps if the developer reads what you've written and gives some idea what
information is missing.
--
The MPAA, RIAA and their paid-for Senators don't think you need a computer you
can program. Disagree? Fight back. http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/
http://www.eff.org/
From jtl@molehill.org Thu Apr 17 12:46:41 2003
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:46:41 -0700
From: Todd Larason <jtl@molehill.org>
To: weblogs-com@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [weblogs-com] Re: doubled requests?
Message-ID: <20030417124641.B11458@molehill.org>
References: <024501c304e6$1cd20160$2000a8c0@wkearney.com> <20030417070843.A2910@molehill.org> <02a701c304f0$511504e0$2000a8c0@wkearney.com> <005701c304f1$38886c40$47d8f78c@DELL63> <20030417082046.A4619@molehill.org> <00b301c304f5$9e085270$47d8f78c@DELL63> <20030417082743.B4619@molehill.org> <28d901c3050f$0ab3cdf0$0201000a@murphy3> <3E9F03F8.5060302@mike-sheryl.com> <2a3c01c30519$1f1161e0$0201000a@murphy3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <2a3c01c30519$1f1161e0$0201000a@murphy3>; from dave@userland.com on Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:39:53PM -0400
X-PGP-Key-URL: http://www.molehill.org/~jtl/public.asc
X-Blog: http://molelog.molehill.org/
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1683
Lines: 56
On 17 April 03, Dave Winer wrote:
> He sure didn't say that.
posted three times now, twice already today
---
Anyway, I think I have this fixed, but I'm still seeing two requests rather
than the I'm expecting:
....
Is this expected behavior, or do I still have something broken?
---
How was I supposed to have phrased it?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Rodriquez
> To: weblogs-com@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [weblogs-com] Re: doubled requests?
>
>
>
> Dave Winer wrote:
> > I can't tell from what you said here what makes your weblog different
> > from the thousands of other blogs that ping Weblogs.Com every day. If
> > you decide to post the information I'll try to figure out what's going
> > wrong. Dave
>
> This isn't about his weblog being different. He just wondered if it
> was normal for there to be 2 fetches from one's blog after a ping. that
> is, why isn't one fetch (to check for true newness) sufficient?
>
> many others noted this is normal behaviour; the reformed question now
> is, why? not that it's a problem, but we're a curious lot, all of us,
> including you ...
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> weblogs-com-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
Todd Larason | Obligatory 'blog: http://molelog.molehill.org/ | UIN: 4401513
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free the mouse! http://eldred.cc/
Dave never did tell me how I should have phrased the question so he'd have understood it.
2003-04-18 22:28:00
| Comments (5)
| TrackBack (0)
|
Computers::Internet