🚀 go-pugleaf

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) escreveu:
> Which is STILL the wrong thing to do!!!  You are not even ensuring
> that your char[] really is large enough to hold everything the server
> may send to you, and at worse you are overallocating more memory than
> you really need right now.

I know that.

> 
>> What I really do is search the first "<select " on the page. When I
>> find it, I look for the second "<option " (if it exists) and so on
> until
>> I find the first "</select>"
> 
> That is very error prone.  Because of the nature of chunked transfers,
> you are not even guaranteed to have such complete strings in your
> buffer because you are not stripping out the chunked information
> first.  You could have "<sel"+chunk+"ect" and the like, which would
> cause your searching algorithm to fail.  You MUST handle chunked
> transfers correctly in order to ensure the integrity of the data you
> want to parse.  I don't know how to make this any clearer to you.

You're right. I forget the problem of the hex code of the chunk be 
inside the data.

> 
>> This is why I do such horrible code...
> 
> Your code is horrible not because of HOW UGLY it is to look at, but
> because how INCOMPLETE it is to begin with.  There are so many things
> you are doing wrong with it that you are not guaranteed to end up with
> the data that you are expecting.
> 

I know that.

>> And why I don't mind to read the chunked data etc...
> 
> The presence of chunking is not an issue.  Your handling of chunking,
> on the other hand, is very much an issue.
> 

I'm rewritting the code since yesterday to take care of many of the 
issues that you target. Including strip the chunk information of the 
data you pointed now. The code I show you on the beggining of the 
discussion was rewrite many times since them.

>> And because the information that I want always come only
>> with the last chunk, I don't bother with the rest.
> 
> That is also not a guarantee, either.  You really don't seem to be
> grasping what HTTP is actually sending you.  So you are going to keep
> handling it all wrong.
> 
>> sometimes the data that came is bigger than normal, and some of that
>> come in the chunk right before the last.
> 
> All the more reason why you NEED to handle chunking, and in fact any
> HTTP transfer in general, properly from the very beginning.  But you
> are refusing to do that much.  Obviously, you want a broken,
> error-prone, dangerous implementation, so that is your choice.  

Sometimes, the broken, error-prone, dangerous implementation, even if it 
really fails from time to time, is a better choice than the opposite...

> I'm done debating this discussion any further.
> 

ok. Was a very instructive (yet may you don't believe) discussion to me. :)

Thanks. :)