http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=299391

Ever since vroom created the function to download code, it doesn't seem that anyone wondered why there is no "download code" link if a reply contains downloadable code.

Rather more frequently I want to download code from a reply. The only way to do this, is to first go to that reply and then download the code. Which seems to me to be an extra pageload that could be avoided. Both for the user as well as the server.

So I think it would be a good idea to also supply a "Download code", or possibly shorter just "Code", next to the Reply link in a reply (if there is code, of course).

Liz

Update:
It appears that my poor understanding of the Everything machine lead me to believe that no extra database access would be required for this change to be implemented. It appears there would have to be an extra database access. Which I think is to be avoided at all cost (having already several hundreds of database accesses for each page rendered). Please consider my idea as scrapped: the extra database accesses for each reply being rendered will not outweigh the possible savings of not having to render an extra page when one wants to access the code link.

  • Comment on Why is there no "Download code" link next to Reply?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Why is there no "Download code" link next to Reply?
by jdtoronto (Prior) on Oct 15, 2003 at 14:29 UTC
    Now that you mention it, why not! I agree that getting the code out of a reply is messy so I often just cut and paste to an editor and then sort out the line wrapping.

    I too would appreciate the ability to download cod eout of a reply whilst reading the thread.

    jdtoronto

[reply]
      Eh, what? Just open the reply by itself in another browser window, or in a new tab if your browser supports it, and there there's a "download code" link.

      If you can't be bothered to go over an intermediate page, you can't go to the page with just the code, either.

[reply]
        Going to the page with just code is pretty fast in PM. That makes sense since the server doesn't need to do a lot. But when it takes 30+ seconds for an intermediate page to render, I tend not to be bothering as well. Which is a shame.

        In my view, the intermediate page is waisting server resources, as it does not really bring anything new, apart from the link to the code download. If the link would be directly available, it would save on the server side as well as on the client side. And as far as I understand, no extra database access would be needed to create the link. So it would only be a little bit more CPU and some more HTML output.

        I have no idea whether the slowness of PM is caused by CPU or (database) IO starvation. If it's IO starvation, then some extra CPU would not be a problem.

        What then remains is the question whether the extra bandwidth needed for the extra HTML compares to the bandwidth saved by the extra page not having to be sent. Looking at the amount of whitespace in the HTML sent by PM, and the fact that it does not seem to support gzip encoding, leads me to conclude that the possible extra bandwidth should not be a problem either.

        Liz

[reply]
Re: Why is there no "Download code" link next to Reply?
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Oct 15, 2003 at 12:56 UTC
    The only way to do this, is to first go to that reply and then download the code. Which seems to me to be an extra pageload that could be avoided. Both for the user as well as the server.
    <mode alignment = "evil">
    Yes, but the extra hit will also be an extra hit on an advertisement.
    </mode>

    Abigail

[reply]
Re: Why is there no "Download code" link next to Reply?
by etcshadow (Priest) on Oct 16, 2003 at 02:43 UTC
    Sounds like a good idea. There is plenty of screen real-estate for it, too.

    ------------
    :Wq
    Not an editor command: Wq
[reply]
Re: Why is there no "Download code" link next to Reply?
by krisahoch (Deacon) on Oct 16, 2003 at 15:41 UTC
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      What's your point? That's of no relevance to the current system either.
[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion