JDownloader Community - Appwork GmbH
 

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03.09.2009, 21:48
rafi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default LinkGrabber - incorrect parsing issue [0.8]

http://img223.imageshack.us/i/20893559.png/

It seems like it has some difficulties understanding that part1 and part01 are the same... Can it be fixed ?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03.09.2009, 21:56
Jiaz's Avatar
Jiaz Jiaz is offline
JD Manager
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 79,290
Default

part01 and part1 are not the same, ebcause different filename!

only by filename you can tell if files are the same....it would cause too many problems if we starting handling both the same...
__________________
JD-Dev & Server-Admin
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03.09.2009, 22:08
rafi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

since I'm new to JD, are you saying that from past experience ? or are you just suspecting that it might cause issues ? If so, maybe having a "smart parts' analyzer" mode that the user can turn on/off be a way to try that out ? ...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04.09.2009, 05:20
Gweilo's Avatar
Gweilo Gweilo is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rafi View Post
http://img223.imageshack.us/i/20893559.png/

It seems like it has some difficulties understanding that part1 and part01 are the same... Can it be fixed ?
It can be fixed if the guy uploading them uses the same filenames for the same files.

Also, after downloading, unrar (or Winrar or whatever) will not combine the parts (.part1, part02...) unless you rename them to the same scheme (.part01, .part02..).

But how can you be sure they really are the same file?
They may be ALMOST the same size, but not really part of the same set, in which case combining them will fail.

JD can't guess that they're the same; in most cases they would not be.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04.09.2009, 07:19
rafi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sounds logical... though, the same argument can apply when the same naming scheme is used. The way to realy check it - is to compare the files MD5. In cases I found (like this example) - it's just that two guys chose two schemes in two hosts. Anyway, the suggestion was to leave it to the user to judge and decide (as an option).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04.09.2009, 08:02
Gweilo's Avatar
Gweilo Gweilo is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rafi View Post
sounds logical... though, the same argument can apply when the same naming scheme is used. The way to realy check it - is to compare the files MD5. In cases I found (like this example) - it's just that two guys chose two schemes in two hosts. Anyway, the suggestion was to leave it to the user to judge and decide (as an option).
If the files were made by two different people, you will not be able to combine them, unless they used exactly the same original file, exactly the same version and settings in WinRAR. And obviously they didn't use the same settings, as the names are different.

You'll just end up with a bunch of fragments and error messages if you try to combine them.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04.09.2009, 08:20
rafi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

the example was from post 43:
**External links are only visible to Support Staff****External links are only visible to Support Staff**

I posted only AFTER it worked for me. JD - does not have eyes, the user does. I would leave it up to him...
I guess in many cases they all come from the same torrent, spitted to parts and renamed.
Is there a way to make JD correlated between them ?

Last edited by rafi; 04.09.2009 at 08:29.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04.09.2009, 08:29
Gweilo's Avatar
Gweilo Gweilo is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rafi View Post
the example was from post 43:
**External links are only visible to Support Staff****External links are only visible to Support Staff**

I posted only AFTER it worked for me. JD - does not have eyes, the user does. I would leave it up to him...

Fine, you were lucky.

So try it if you like, but I don't want JD to do it automatically.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04.09.2009, 08:41
rafi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rafi View Post
...maybe having a "smart parts' analyzer" mode that the user can turn on/off be a way to try that out ? ...
user selectable. just for you ...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04.09.2009, 13:06
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IMO, jD should only automate this when the files are known to have been mirrored, because only in this case jD can be sure that the files - even if they have a slightly different name - are the same.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04.09.2009, 13:11
Gweilo's Avatar
Gweilo Gweilo is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by remi View Post
IMO, jD should only automate this when the files are known to have been mirrored, because only in this case jD can be sure that the files - even if they have a slightly different name - are the same.
And how is JD supposed to know they're really mirrors, despite having different names?

This is impossible to automate.
Just downlaod and change the names yourself and see if the set can extract if you believe they are mirrors.

But this is hardly ever going to work, really.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05.09.2009, 15:17
remi
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

I don't think so. Please consult hxxp://www.heroturko.us/tutorials/1493-multi-mirror-uploading-free-hosts.html.

Some of the mirroring sites listed there (ShareOnAll for instance) are dead.

When jD gets such a link, it should tag the decrypted mirror links.

Sharebee.com and Flameupload.com (not listed on the mentioned site) are supported by jD. I don't have the list of decrypters jD supports, so I'm not sure about whether the others are supported by jD.

Also the Metalink standard, which is supported by jD, describes mirroring data.

Last edited by remi; 18.09.2009 at 13:58.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05.09.2009, 15:46
Gweilo's Avatar
Gweilo Gweilo is offline
JD Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by remi View Post
I don't think so. Please consult **External links are only visible to Support Staff**this page.

I didn't say JD couldn't handle mirrors; I said that it could not know a file was a mirror if the name was not identical, and asking it to guess a similar name was meant to be would be a huge waste of time.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 22:47.
Provided By AppWork GmbH | Privacy | Imprint
Parts of the Design are used from Kirsch designed by Andrew & Austin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.