Re: Re: RE: MORE Checker Samples

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson <mailbox@gunnar.cc>]

Jock,
Thanks for the clarification as regards sites that passed but which you
first thought should have failed. It helped me make an important
conclusion at http://www.gunnar.cc/ringlink/mailarc/msg01120.html
> The htmlcode.txt file uses the $::siteid variable to automaticaly
> generate the Javascript the same as it would the HTML.  I'll bet
> you never thought anyone would do THAT with Ringlink!
No, I have to admit that I didn't anticipate your creative JavaScript
solution. :)
> A third checker option to check for a string provided by the
> Ringmaster would let me check for 'BlacksmithsRingID' (or any
> other line in the Javascript) and the checker would work for my
> rings and others that are using my jsNAVBAR.
I see your point, but I'm not ready to give it very high priority for
the time being.
> 1) It seems that some of the "free" hosts that have database
> generated code are interupting the expected HTML response.  While
> the system is processing the request the server may be breifly
> responding with an error mesage. Could it be that browsers use
> more "retries" (not just waiting) than the checker and eventualy
> get through?
That theory makes sense to me, but honestly I have no idea. Anyone else
who is able to explain how servers interact with browsers, and how the
code for the Ringlink checker should be adopted as a result of it?
> 2) Sometimes programs that run into unexpected errors return the
> last error message or whatever happens to be in memory.  I was
> just wondering if because I have created a condition where the
> string being looked for was NULL that this may have created the
> wrong errors to be returned. . .
No, the fact that you didn't let the checker test any links has nothing
to do with the checker's disability to grab the relevant info.
/ Gunnar