Request wrt. variables

[~GeeS~]

Hi,

first I want to say that HFS2.0 is one of the greatest pieces of software i've used.
Here are my requests/suggestions/ideas:
1. In order to build my website, the main page (server root) should show my induvidualized content, whereas the fileserver part should be accesible from a link from there. I could solve that by using the %login% and %loggedin% variables to control the html-flow. This could be achieved in the grey template (see post before) because both variables do exactly the opposite.
I would like to do the same with other variables, like %upload%, which takes over under the condition that there is a real folder. What i would like, is to have the opposite variable "%non-upload% in order to create different html layout for download and upload folders.

2. Uploading with the same filename overwrites the existing file with the same name. This could be exploited to delete uploaded files. Is it possible to append for examle a timestamp on every file to make uploaded files unique? (like %timestamp%_filename.ext for uploaded files)

3. I know this is requested several times, but https support would make HFS a real killer...
Just my thougts.

Oh btw ... HFS works also fine on LAN's, fits on a memory stick & travels with me in my pocket. I can now be online from every PC (no  registry!) as long there is no firewall to cross. GREAT!

~GeeS~

[rejetto]

1. how are you using those variables? javascript?

2. i would like to not implement such feature now, because a future feature will let you do such thing and much more.
i'm talking about this

a way to call external software on upload, with additional post data (e.g. virus scan, unzip, etc)

you could just call a script that renames the file.
i'm unsure about this coming in 2.1
just notice that 2.0 is taking so much time just because of that fu%&ing processQ bug.

3. it was not just requested, it was discussed
you can read my replies using the search

[~GeeS~]

1. No, i'm not using javascript. To the contrary, i want to avoid it & that's the reason why i used Mr. Anon's black tpl as starting point for my grey tpl. What i use, is the definition of sections in your html, like [login] [loggedin]. For each section i used different html in order to create a different layout for the server root. The [login]-loop is used to show my starting page, whereas the [loggedin]-loop comes up with the original HFS folder and file layout.
So my request is, to have also variables/sections available contrary to the existing ones, like [up]/["root'']=non-root/root or [upload-link]/["download"]=real folder/virtual folder. I just had a look in your source code, where you defined login and loggedin. The extra sections would allow to create loops with adapted html without using javascript! So the download section(virtual folder) can get a different layout than the upload (real) folder. The same applies to root/non-root.

2. Nice to hear. In fact for the time being i could  "solve" the problem of overwriting existing files by hiding the uploaded files with the files filter command /*. So in fact it's a simple more or less anonymous mailbox.
What i was looking for, is also a simple message board (upload displayed, but not delete-able.

3. I've read the discussion on ssl-support. One of your objections was that you have to pay for the software. Maybe i'm wong but afaik openssl is available for free under public license. I use it as add on for Proxomitron.
Don't get me wrong, i didn't want you to bother with requests for software which is already for free. What i wanted to say is that HFS is 10/10 and ssl would make a 10+.

~GeeS~

[rejetto]

1. and exactly, what sections do you need?
i don't know how you will create these loops, since the solving of %symbols% is limited to a depth of 3 (AFAIR)

2. a message board?

3. you did not read well. i'm using a lib for sockets. this lib doesn't support openssl in its free form. i don't know how hard is to start using openssl without that, i guess very hard.

[Anonymous]

1. I would like to use modify my tpl to the following structure:
Main: start ... %login-link% %logged-in% ... end

[login-link]: my homepage-html with link to login
[loggedin]: ...%up% %root(non-up)% ...

[root/non-up]: html with links to hfs folders
[up]: ...%upload-link% %non-upload-link% ...

[upload-link]: html for uploading & link to upload form in new window
[non-upload-link]: html for downloading

What i need is the [root/non-up] and [non-upload-link] section to control the flow of the html generated by hfs.

With this flow 4 different pages with their own html could be constructed without script from the hfs tpl:
1. login-html
2. loggedin+root-html
3. loggedin+up+uploadlink-html
4. loggedin+up+non-uploadlink-html
plus the progressfolder and upload form (i prefer to have them in separate windows).
Each page could contain specific information relevant for the user.

In main.pas of the beta21 source i found this section:

Code: [Select]

// build final page
if list='' then list:=tpl['nofiles']
else list:=x_template(tpl['files'], ['%list%',list]);

table:=getBaseSymbolsTable(folder);
addArray(table, getBaseSymbolsTable_user(conn.request.user));
addArray(table, [
  '%host%', conn.getHeader('host'),
  '%upload-link%', ifThen(uploadAllowed(conn, folder), tpl['upload-link']),
  '%up%', ifThen(not folder.isRoot(), tpl['up']),

so for the requested %root% and %non-upload-link% the following statements would apply:
'%root%', ifThen(folder.isRoot(), tpl['root']),
'%non-upload-link%', ifThen(uploadnotAllowed(conn, folder), tpl['non-upload-link']),
 
i'm not a programmer, but just to show what i mean. i'm not aware about the depth of the %symbols%, so you decide.
Sorry for the long explanation, but i want to be sure that you understand my request.

2. Yes, someone uploads a file like date_time_message.txt, when everybody can read it is a primitive kind of messagebox. And what's more important, when only i can read it, it is a simple mailbox. Advantage: maximum privacy, no files stored or backupped for years on external servers. Just on my PC in my home and can be deleted at any time.  

3. I got the point. So the second best solution then, would be the use of JAP/TOR for encrypted transmission.

Another suggestion: Would it be feasible to put header information in %symbols% like user_agent, referer, forwarded_for etc? Just to show visitors what the are sending to the server.