opinions and requests

[Matt]

Initial thoughts about HFS from a very new user:

I was looking for a simple web server for occasional file transfers.  Instead, I found HFS which goes far beyond that.  Its capability and extreme flexibility are impressive.  I can imagine the effort that goes into making increasingly complex systems like HFS work well.

What I would I like to see in HFS: 

1.  Transfers of multiple files and whole folders.  I sought a web server for file transfers because some of my users are non-techies who found the existing FTP server too challenging.   Yes, the Tar archiving in HFS works, but these users, even though otherwise intelligent, would run for the hills at the mention of a Tar archive or of learning any new procedure however slight.  HFS is very good for downloads of one or two files, even very large ones.  But for downloading whole folders, each with a set of many related files, HFS seems to fall short.

2. Related to the above, drag-and-drop downloading would be nice (if HFS doesn't already do that) but not really necessary.

3. In the tables, I have no need to show the number of hits for each file or folder, which can easily be omitted from the tables.  Instead, it would be most useful to show the listed folders with each folder's size (total number of bytes in all files within that folder) and its number of files.  That way, users can see instantly whether particular folders are massive or tiny.

HFS is a well-crafted and promising product, and that's what keeps me playing with it.  I would very much like to adopt it.  It would be a pleasure to learn that the above functions are already in HFS or in an external template.

[JellyFrog]

1) Use 7-zip in windows works with tar,rar,zip,iso.. and is free and open source. But I know, people don't want to download apps, rejetto says zip is much more complicated and is not a priority (search the forum for more info)

2) Browser limit and not hfs limit
3) You could change the template yourself, I dont think there is a way to check this (yet) but you should read: http://www.rejetto.com/wiki/index.php/HFS:_Template_symbols

[rejetto]

thank you matt.
1. zip format is in the to-do list. Have you any additional suggestion about it?
2. browsers just create links when I drag&drop a link. I fear that's impossible to get.
3. it's not hard to do, but i had to put aside this feature because it may take minutes to read the whole folder structure to know such information. Disks are slow.

[JellyFrog]

3. it's not hard to do, but i had to put aside this feature because it may take minutes to read the whole folder structure to know such information. Disks are slow.

Maybe VFS could cache the foldersize?

[rejetto]

to cache it, i must have it, and it takes minutes

[Matt]

JellyFrog and Rejetto, I like the idea of caching the foldersizes if VFS is used.  Because of my large folders (Each category has several hundred subfolders, with dozens of files in each.), real folders were used.  Your idea would make VFS worthwhile.  Then, the VFS could be refreshed once a month, while a small real folder could hold new arrivals.  Nice.

Rejetto, it would as you say "take minutes" to gather the total filesizes of folders and subfolders.  Many minutes for large sets.  HFS already takes a long time to form or refresh a VFS.  It's not a process you would sit there and wait for.  For small file systems, you would go get some coffee while HFS forms the VFS.  For medium systems. you would go out for the evening.  For large systems, you would go on vacation. :-)  In any case, since you're not sitting and waiting for it, taking more time to include foldersize should not be a problem.

Hmmm... Windows provides this information pretty quickly, taking only a few seconds for very large folders.  Can you use Windows' built-in calls to do this?

Yes, there are many utilities that handle Tar archives.  Haven't used 7-zip in a couple of years, but others like WinRAR, WinZip, etc. all work.  Also, many file managers, such as VCOM's Powerdesk, handle archives including Tar files directly.  The problem is a human one, not a technical one.   Now, non-techies will be faced with a Tar file for the first time, see something unfamiliar that may require who-knows-what from them, and get off the train at that point.  Many will not willingly learn what clicking the Archive link in HFS does.  Also, Archiving does not permit selection of some but not all files.

Ideally, HFS should be at least as easy for users as an FTP server with respect to selecting multiple files or whole folders to download.

Thanks for the link to HFS templates and symbols.  The total-size, total-kbytes, and total bytes variables (symbols) would seem relevant.  Perhaps they could be expanded to hold foldersizes as well as filesizes.   Or new, similar variables could handle foldersizes.

Rejetto, Zip is certainly more familiar to the broad range of users than Tar, but it would still leave the problem of requiring an archiving step and an unpacking step. If those two steps could be made transparent to users, then it wouldn't matter what archive format you chose.  Even small, fast ones with only moderate compression, like the old LZH (free) could be used.  You would have to include the small unpacking code in your transmitted pages though.

The compression that archivers provide isn't very important since many files are already compressed, so an archiver isn't really needed.  It's the selection capability (multiple files, whole folders) that's needed. 

[rejetto]

we will never get the compression for folder archives. it's incompatible with the resume feature.

selection will come.

Even 15 seconds, to know the size of a SINGLE folder, is too much. It's just nothing you can know how long it takes. And you want to refresh the value every month? Showing a wrong (outdated) information is not something to do with ease. You may see 1GB and it may actually be 2GB, or even 10MB. The size of a folder is something that can vary very rapidly.

[rejetto]

kremlin moved to
http://www.rejetto.com/forum/index.php?topic=6580.0

[Matt]

Thanks.  BTW, my system's needs may not be the same as your other users.  My wishlist shouldn't count unless it reflects common need. 

we will never get the compression for folder archives. it's incompatible with the resume feature.

That makes sense (incompatibility with resume).  I see little need for compression.  How often do we download massive files that are not either compressed executables or compressed archives (zip, rar, etc) over a dialup connection? 

selection will come.

That's great!  If HFS will permit the selection of multiple files and folders to download, I'll marry it.

Even 15 seconds, to know the size of a SINGLE folder, is too much. It's just nothing you can know how long it takes. And you want to refresh the value every month? Showing a wrong (outdated) information . . .

In some cases that's consequential; in others it isn't.  My system has a static collection of files (classical music).  I could refresh a VFS as little as once a year.  New arrivals could then be kept in a real folder, or (better) in a VFS and that one small folder refreshed every night.

I agree that waiting even 15 seconds for the size of a single folder would be too much...if you were doing it in real time and sitting in front of a screen waiting for it to complete.  But if you schedule a VFS refresh to run during the night, or if you start the refresh before going to sleep, who cares how long it takes? 

If some HFS users have large file systems that change constantly, then (a) real folders can be used instead of VFS, and (b) perhaps HFS could offer the option of forming a VFS without adding foldersize.

[Matt]

Further comment:  Selection of multiple files and folders is important, but showing the total size of each folder in a list of folders is not as important.  While showing the size of folders in a list of folders would be nice, users can simply go into a folder if they want to see the total size of its files.

[TSG]

Rejetto have you thought of using .zip without compression? simply a .tar but .zip? I don't see how this can be any more complicated than .tar, but then i'm not the one attempting to program it. Cause .zip can be opened on most windows machines using just the operating system, at least from xp onwards from what I can remember. Maybe Matt has thought of this above but i'm in a hurry so I simply read the initial post and skimmed.

I like the scheduled VFS refresh idea, however what if the server has a lot of users? The refresh would have to occur in the background and the new .vfs used when the connection is idle...

[Matt]

Rejetto,

I've been continuing to explore HFS, grabbing a few minutes whenever possible to play with it.  The more I learn about HFS, the more I like it.  Upon reading the Template Macros descriptions, I am once again impressed by the amount of capability you've got stuffed into what I expected to be a simple web server. 

The power of systems like this, designed not for end users but those developing web sites, comes from giving developers maximum flexibility to accomplish what they want the way they want.  End users need "easy" while developers need "maximum control."

A web server is a conceptually simple tool: just read files on disk and serve up links to them.  But you have that task sitting on top of a system of high-level programming functions.  The result is extreme flexibility (power).   And for novices, you have a default system that can be used right out of the box.  With its extreme capability, it might be trivial to have HFS incorporate functions of an FTP server, a discussion forum, or many other web-interactive tasks.

HFS may not be fully cooked yet, as there are areas that could use more development, or documentation, or interface polish.  But in its current state, HFS is both powerful and usable.  It must be hard to overstate how much work goes into it.  As you must know all too well, as you add features, they interact in ways that can be unpredictable.  As you increase what HFS can do, the potential interactions among its components increase exponentially.   

Rejetto, please excuse my discourse, but I continue to be impressed by HFS.  It may be young, but it is already quite an accomplishment.  Nice going!

[rejetto]

In some cases that's consequential; in others it isn't.  My system has a static collection of files (classical music).  I could refresh a VFS as little as once a year.  New arrivals could then be kept in a real folder, or (better) in a VFS and that one small folder refreshed every night.

It's not trivial as it seems.

I think many people wouldn't understand why the displayed folder size is WRONG (they not necessarily understand it's outdated). Doesn't seem something to be applied to everyone. So it should be something to be enabled on demand.

Another problem is that the folder size is the total of the DISPLAYED files. Not necessarily all files are displayed, you can use filters, and other methods. Any change in this sense would invalidate the current value.

Consider that any geek can already do it for real folders at least www.rejetto.com/forum/?topic=6584

[rejetto]

Rejetto have you thought of using .zip without compression?

sure. that's what i mean about the zip in the to-do-list.
as i said, compression is not possible at all.

simply a .tar but .zip?

of course renaming the file is not enough

I don't see how this can be any more complicated than .tar,

zip format is much more complex than tar, even without compression.
You can shave by fixing a razor and moving your head. Very similar, but much harder.

[rejetto]

Rejetto, please excuse my discourse, but I continue to be impressed by HFS.  It may be young, but it is already quite an accomplishment.  Nice going!

Thank you for your examination.
HFS would deserve much more work/time. So much to do. Sadly i'm not unemployed (or rich).